U.S. coastal belt; conflict, resolution, and promise proceedings of a Conference on the Management of Our Coastal and Ocean Resources, June 20-21, 1977, Center for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R. I

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone ""ro
Information 12 74Vg
Center COASTAL 7mu
N
INFORMATiOl" CENTER
U COASTAL BELT
Conflict, Resolution, and Promise

k- - --------

GC
1001
C66 r.fo-r-Ocean Management Studies
1977 '@Irsity of -Rhode island

This conference was partially funded by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, U.S.
Department of Commerce, underGrant #04-7-158-44088.

The Center for Ocean Management Studies was created in the tall of
coms 1-976 for the purpose of promoting effective coastal and ocean management.
The Center identifies ocean management issues, holds workshops and
conferences to discuss these issues, and develops recommendations and
research programs to resolve them.

12746
COASTAL Z0NE
INF0RMATION CENTER
U.S. Coastal Belt:
Conflict, Resolution, and Promise

Proceedings of a Conference on the
Management of Our Coastal and Ocean Resources

Lewis M. Alexander, Editor

June 20-21, 1977
Center for Ocean Management Studies
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

Property Of CSC Library

Table of Contents

Introduction I Getting into Deep Water: Emerging Environ-
Lewis Alexander mental Regimes and Jurisdictional Conflicts
of the Coastal Belt 73
Management Issues in the Coastal Region 3 Robert E Lutz
Robert Knecht
Goals for Public Management 87
Coastal Belt Uses and Needs: Fisheries 6 Giulio Pontecorvo
Brian J Rothschild and Catherine E Melehy
Federal Mechanisms for Management 90
Coastal Belt Uses and Needs: Oil and Gas 16 Robert W Nibloch
W L Berry
Regional Mechanisms for Management 91
Transportation in the Coastal Belt 20 Frank Gregg
John W Devanney
State Mechanisms for Management 93
Marine Recreation: Uses and Needs 23 Lois Ewen
Niels Rorholm
Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and
Offshore Oil Development and the Fishing Compensation Legislation 95
Industry: The Georges Bank Case 28 Barbara D. Burke
Stephen Olsen and Thomas Grigalunas
List of Participants 98
Deepwater Ports and the Marine Environment:
An Issue for the Gulf Coast 37
Shepard F Perrin, Jr.

A Case Study of Marine Recreation Conflicts
in Southern California 44
Susan H. Anderson

Patterns of Jurisdiction in the Coastal Belt 48
Lewis Alexander

Implications of the Changes in Fisheries Law
for the U.S. Coastal States 53
Francis X Cameron

Legal and Jurisdictional Changes for Oil and Gas
in the Coastal Belt 58
John L Seymour

Jurisdictional Issues in Marine Transportation 69
Joseph Bockrath

introduction

Lewis Alexander

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, and through the enactment of the Coastal Zone Manage-
welcome to the first annual conference of the Center ment Act. The coastal states of the United States
for Ocean Management Studies. The theme of the are now engaged in developing, or implementing,
conference is Management of the Coastal Belt and coastal zone management plans. In doing so, the
we hope, through this meeting, to identify problems states must be aware of the onshore impacts of
and develop concepts concerning this geographic the offshore activities - a process which involves
area. some management functions relating to offshore
At the outset, something should be said about activities which take place beyond the seaward
both the coastal belt and the Center for Ocean boundaries of the coastal zone, that is, more than
Management Studies. The identification of the coastal three nautical miles offshore. Because of the obvious
belt came in response to national management needs interactions between offshore, inshore, and onshore
in the marine environment beyond the limits of the activities, and of the possibilities of some forms of
territorial sea. Although some forms of management management of these activities on a coordinated
needs have existed in this area for several decades, basis, the concept of the coastal belt has been
particularly with respect to the resources of the developed, embracing both the coastal zone and
continental shelf, the real impetus came in March the offshore areas between 3 and 200 nautical miles.
1977, with the coming into effect of the Fishery In the case of seabed resources, the management
Conservation and Management Act, which extends area may be extended, on the ocean floor, to more
U.S. fisheries jurisdiction out to a maximum of 200 than 200 miles, but this issue remains to be resolved
nautical miles from shore. Along with the new fish- within the framework of the ongoing Law of the Sea
eries jurisdictions have come increased activities Conference.
within the 200-mile zone relating to oil and gas From considerations of the coastal belt, we turn
developments on the outer continental shelf, as well to those concerning our host, the Center for Ocean
as to shipping developments, particularly those Management Studies. The Center was created in the
associated with the importation of hydrocarbons into fall of 1976 for the purpose of promoting effective
the United States. To some of us it seems likely coastal and ocean management. The Center identifies
that before long U.S. jurisdiction in the 200-mile ocean management issues, holds workshops and
zone may, in addition to fisheries and continental conferences to discuss these issues, and develops
shelf resources, be extended also to certain aspects recommendations and research programs to resolve
of pollution control, not now covered by international them.
agreements. Finally, let me express my appreciation to three
A few -years ago, comprehensive management people who helped to make this conference possible.
processes within the coastal zone (extending out to First is Dr. John Knauss, Dean of the Graduate
three nautical miles from shore) were provided School of Oceanography and Provost for Marine

Affairs, whose brainchild the Center for Ocean
Management Studies is, and who, for fifteen years,
has led Rhode Island both in its oceanography
and in its marine affairs programs. Second is Dr.
Neils Royholm, Professor of Resource Economics,
who, during the past year has chaired the Steering
Committee of COMS and paved the way for its first
annual conference. Third is Virginia Tippie, who has
successfully served as Acting Executive Director
of COMS, and whose energy and enthusiasm have
contributed greatly to what we hope and expect to
be a successful first annual conference here at
Rhode Island.

Management Issues in the Coastal Region

Robert Knecht
Director, Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA

For purposes of my discussion this morning, siting; North Carolina commercial and sports
I have divided the coastal belt into three geographical fishing, tourism.
regimes as follows: the Shoreland Regime, the State' Little comprehensive planning has been accom-
Regime, and the Federal/International Regime. For plished to date at the state level, but the need for
each of these regimes, I would like to focus briefly such planning is growing. Ultimately, state coastal
on, first, the nature of the resources to be managed; zone management programs should,contain a com-
second, the political and jurisdictional interests at prehensive "wet half." In the case of state pro-
stake; third, management philosophy and goals; and grams, data and informational needs are substantial
fourth, information, data, and planning requirements. and largely unmet, hence these needs often are
limiting elements.
Re Igime 1: Shoreland Regime III: Federal/International
In this regime private ownership is the pre- Under this regime, jurisdiction (over resources)
dominate characteristic of the resources to be
managed. Use and management are principally is clear, and extends out to 200 miles or the edge
affected by market forces and by local government of the continental shelf (or further under certain
regulations, while the state and federal impacts circumstances). Management- philosophy is ex-
are largely indirect. State coastal zone management, pressed in a number of diverse pieces of federal
programs are aimed at inducing a broader view and legislation, such as the OCS Lands Act, Fishery
at more effective management of the local areas. Conservation and Man agement Act, and marine
While planning requirements are substantial, data' sanctuary provisions of the Ocean Dumping Act.
and information needs do not significantly limit International ground rules are contained in the
management progress. 1958 Geneva Conventions, and the federal govern-
ment' s management strategy is influenced both by
foreign policy implications and by the attitudes of
adjacent coastal states. Data, informational, and
Regime II: State planning needs are substantial and generally unmet
This regime generally involves both transitional at the federal/international levels.
zones - such as coastal wetland areas - and the At least three types of linkages exist between
territorial sea. Jurisdiction is generally clear, except these regimes. I would define them as physical, opera-
in certain wetlands or with respect -to certain fish- tional, and institutional.
eries stocks, and management goals are determined Physical Links
largely by the orientation and needs of the state:
e.g., California - recreation and protection; Texas - For purposes of the topic at hand, two physical
recreation, environment, energy, 'and industrial linkages seem most important. They are water pollu-

tion and fisheries. Pollution impacts link shore-based activities in Regime III to impacts in Regimes I
discharges with deleterious effects on marine and 11.
resources offshore. Similarly, pollutants discharged One could ask, at this point, does the existence
at sea (drill rigs, ocean-dumping, tanker operations) of these numerous ties form a kind of de facto
can have adverse impacts nearshore and onshore. coastal belt management program? I think the answer
In a similar way, certain fish stocks migrate between is clear that they do not, at least not at the present
the estuaries and nearshore waters and offshore time. No one, for example, would want to claim the
areas. Coastal habitats are linked to offshore areas EIS process as an effective management tool.
through fishery migration patterns. Turning now to some of the goals of an effec-
tive management scheme, three essential areas would
Operational Systems be: to resolve conflicts; to optimize use or produc-
The systems associated with the development tion; to identify and exploit new opportunities.
and production of offshore oil and gas supplies link At best, most of the institutional arrangements
ocean areas well at sea with shore locations. It can now in being aid in conflict identification and, to a
be anticipated that offshore marine sand and gravel certain extent, conflict resolution, but they are not
recovery systems as well as deepsea mining systems well suited to capitalizing on new opportunities. This
will similarly link the offshore with coastal loca- latter function generally depends upon I@aving an
tions. And, in a certain sense, fareways established adequate supply of data and information upon which
by the Coast Guard for navigational purposes to and to base plans and projections, all items which aye
from major ports constitute an operating system weak in the present setup.
that bisects all three regimes. What can be said with regard to future trends
and pressures? Will they tend to woyk towards a
Institutional Links more coherent, better coordinated coastal and ocean
management system? Or will they be such as to tend
Six different or potential institutional ties to perpetuate the existing fragmentation and single-
between the three regimes are relevant. purpose approach?
1. The Coastal Zone Management Act. This pro- it seems to me that pressures of both kinds wi 11
gram has as a principal objective the Ii nking Of exist.
Regimes I and 11, but extends into Regime III through Theye will be pressures toward a more coherent
the federal consistency provision. program. Pressure will be exeyted by coastal states
2. The Fishery Conservation and Management through federal consistency provisions of their
Act. Primarily aimed at Regime III, but can affect coastal management program (and the Depaytment of
Regime 11 (and presumably Regime I) under certain Commerce). International pressures on U.S. ocean
conditions. activities will be exerted through the State Depart-
3. The Marine Sanctuaries Program. A single ment. The development of a more extensive marine
marine sanctuary can be designated over an area sanctuary system (as a counteypoint to ocean devel-
encompassing all three regimes (with state approval). opment) will force cooperative state-federal collaboy-
4. The Environmental Impact Statement Pro- ation on ocean areas needing protection.
cess. In theory,, this process could link all three, Counteypressures will exist as well. There is a
but in fact is used primarily to link proposed activi- prevailing fear of a super ocean management agency.
ties in Regime III to adverse impacts in Regimes I 'Turf" problems exist at both the federal and state
and II. levels. Pressures may be exerted by constituencies
5. Pending OCS Lands Act Amendments. Here that benefit from continued single purpose programs.
again, the amendments, when enacted, will increase
the linkage between actions in Regime III and impacts In conclusion, it seems to me that the following
in Regimes I and II. three factors will be important in the coming years
6. The Deepwater Ports Act. This legislation, in determining the manner in which a coherent ocean
albeit in a somewhat limited way, links proposed management pyogram evolves:

1. The pace and diversity of ocean development
will almost certainly quicken.
2. The adjacent coastal states will become
increasingly involved in these federally controlled
ocean development activities.
a. To protect their resources.
b. To be able to deal with onshore impacts.
c. To share in the economic benefits.
3. As our domestic development activities
expand on the outer continental shelf, the inter-
national and foreign policy implications of these
activities will also grow.
Taken together then, these factors will tend to
force the United States toward a more unified coastal
and ocean management system. The rate at which
this takes place and the precise nature of such a
management scheme of course remain to be seen.
,In my opening remarks, I have attempted to
provide you with my perspective of the coastal belt
management problem. Clearly it is strongly influ-
enced by my coastal zone management orientation.
Nonetheless, I hope that these observations will
contribute to your discussions over the next two days.

Coastal Belt Uses and Needs: Fisheries

Brian J.. Rothschild, Director, Catherine E. Meleky, Industry Economist
Office of Policy Development and Long-Range Planning, National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA

Any assessment of coastal belt uses and needs while U.S. commercial and recreational fishing
must include a consideration of fisheries manage- accounted for 21 percent and 3 percent, respectively.
ment in the territorial sea and in the conservation Foreign fishing occurs primarily off the New England
zone (the territorial sea is generally considered to and Pacific coasts, especially off the coast of
be 0-3 miles from the coast and the conservation Alaska, as shown in Figure 2.
zone from 3-200 miles). Approximately 5 million The Fishery Conservation and Management Act
tons of fish are taken each year from waters within
200 miles of the coast. The distribution by use group Figure 2. U.S. Commercial, U.S. Recreational, and Foreign Catch, by Area,
and location is shown in Figure 1. The U.S. com- by Distance from Shore.'
mercial catch accounts for approximately 70 percent Pacific Coast
and Alaska
of the total in the territorial sea, while recreational 2300 -
fishing accounts for about 30 percent. Historically, Gulf of
foreign fishing in the U.S. fishery conservation zone 1300 - I Mexico
accounted for about 76 percent of the total catch 800 - New England
V)
Z
0
Figure 1. U.S. Commercial, U.S. Recreational, and Foreign Catch, by s
Distance from Shore.'
600
4- LJ
IF

Z Middle
Atlantic
V) 400
0 7 South
Z 3
0
Atlantic

Foreign 200-
W 2

Z 7
US.Commercial
_j
_j

n 0 ro 0 0 t) 0 to 0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
U.S.Commercial 0 1@ 0 1@ 0 1@ cli
U.S.Recreallionol In
MILES FROM SHORE
USIRecreational
I r [3 = Commercial 0 = Recreational E] = Foreign
0-3 MILES 3-200MILES
"U.S. commercial catch, 1976; U.S. recreational catch. 1970; foreign catch, 'U.S. commercial catch, 1976; U.S. recreation al catch, 1970; foreign catch,
1w
-j

1975. 1975.
Source. U.S. Department ofCommerce, 1970: US, Department ofCommerce, 1976, Source. US. Department ofCommerce, 1970, US. Department ofCommerce, 1976,
U.S. Department of Commerce, unpublished statistics, 1975. US. Department of Commerce, unpublished statistics, 1975.

Table 1. Location of Commercial Catch for Major Finfish and Shellfish, Figure 3. Number of Anglers and Weight of Recreational Catch, 1960,
1976. 1965, 1970.

10 -
Catch Catch Percent of Recreational Catch 0
Species 0-3 3-200 Total Catch 0
miles Miles 0-3
(Thousand Metric Tons) Miles V) a
Z
0
Numbers of Anglers
Finfish:
Alewives FX
24.6 - - - - 24.6 100 l`_
W 6--
Bluefish 4.2 0.5 4.7 89 2
Croaker 8.6 5.6 14.2 61 a
Z
Cod 2.9 27.8 30.7 9 <
(A
Flounder. Atlantic D
0 4--
and Gulf 9.6 8.6 18.2 53 3:
Flounder, Pacific 3.5 10.8 14.3 24
Sea Herring 60.1 8.3 68.4 88
Mackerel, Jack 2.7 14.8 17.5 is 2--
Mackerel, Spanish 2.3 4.1 6.4 36
Menhaden 828.6 96.5 925. t 90
Mullet 13.7 0.1 13.8 99
Salmon, King 10.5 5.1 15.6 67
Salmon, Chum 23.9 - - - - 23.9 100 1955 60 65 70
Salmon, Pink 42.3 2.7 45.0 94 YEAR
Salmon, Red 37.7 - - - - 37.7 100 Source., US. Department of Commerce, 197a
Salmon, Silver 10.9 7.1 18.0 61
Sea Trout, Gray 6.0 3.4 9.4 64
Striped Bass 2.6 0.1 2.7 96 except if the secretary finds that the fishing in
Shellfish: a fishery is covered by a fishery management plan
Clam, Hard 7.1 - - - - 7.1 100 implemented under this Act, is engaged in predomi-
Clam, Surf 3.0 19.3 22.3 13
Crab, Blue 51.1 0.2 51.3 99 nately within the fishery conservation zone and
Crab, Dungeness 13.0 3.2 16.2 80 beyond such zone." As shown in Table 1, many major
Crab, King 9.6 38.4 48.0 20 species of fish are caught both in the territorial
Crab, Snow 5.5 31.1 36.6 15
Lobster, American 10.5 3.9 14.4 73 sea and in the conservation zone. Since the FCMA
Oyster Meat 24.7 - - - - 24.7 100 provides no exact definition of "predominately,"
Shrimp 79.0 104.0 183.0 43 the problem of classifying each fishery exists.
Source., US Department of Commerce, 1976 Further, only fisheries that are considered as pre-
dominately within the conservation zone are subject
(FCMA)l has created, among other things, the insti- to the full management authority of the FCMA.
tutional basis for management of fisheries by estab- If, for example, predominately were to refer to
lishing (1) jurisdiction over fishery resources, catches greater than 50 percent of the total catch,
(2) eight Regional Councils, and (3) guidelines for then 90 of the 117 species of recreational and
the development of systematic management plans for commercial fish at present caught within 200 miles
each fishery. would be classified as occurring predominately
Under the Fishery Conservation and Manage- within the territorial sea, or approximately 2/3 of
ment Act, fisheries may be classified in two ways: the domestic catch would be taken predominately
(1) those that are fished "predominately" in the . in the territorial sea.
conservation zone and (2) those that are fished Recreational fishing makes the problems asso-
-"predominately" in the territorial sea. Specifically, ciated with fisheries management in the conservation
Section 306 (a) & (b) of the Fishery Management zone and territorial sea more complex. Estimates are
and Conservation Act states, ". . . nothing in this Uiat the U.S. recreational catch accounts for about
Act shall be construed as extending or diminishing one-half of the total food-fish catch in the terri-
the jurisdiction of any State within its boundaries. . ." torial sea. Recreational fishing, to a lesser extent,
R

Figure 4. Number of Commercial Fishermen and Weight of Commercial Figure 5. Bluefish: U.S. Commercial Catch, 1956-1976, and U.S. Recrea-
Catch, 1950, 1955. 1960, 1965, 1970, 1973. tional Catch, 1965 and 1970.
60 0
300 -- 40 0

5
0
250
COMMERCIAL CATCH 20

4
200
0
0
151-
Z
0
150 -

NUMBER OF
io, W
COMMERCIAL
too FISHERMEN
2
Z

0
1
1950 55 60 65 70 73
YEAR
Source. US Department of Commerce, 1976.

also takes place in the conservation zone. From 1955 19 56 610 65 70 7576
to 1970, the number of recreational fishermen YEAR
increased over 100 percent and expenditures for
recreational fishing increased over 150 percent. 2 9 -Commercial 0= Recreational
Preliminary estimates of the number of recreational Source. U.S. Department ofCommerce, 1970: US. Department ofCommerce, 1974:
fishermen and expenditures for recreational fishing U.S. Department of Commerce. 1975, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976.
indicate that a further increase took place in 1975.
Figure 3 shows the quantity of recreational catch Figure 6. Flounder, Summer: U.S. Commercial Catch, 1956-1976, and U.S.
and the number of anglers engaged in recreational' Recreational Catch, 1965 and 1970.
fishing. As shown by the trend lines in Figure 3, 17 0
the number of recreational anglers is increasing
at a greater rate than the catch. Figure 4 shows that 12 0
the U.S. commercial catch and the number of com- 11
mercial fishermen decreased by 20 percent, while 10
the commercial catch did not change appreciably 0
Z
(2 percent). Similarly, an increase in the number 0
of fishermen from 1970 to 1973 did not greatly 7.5--
increase the quantity of fish caught. The same trend
W
occurs if the number of vessels is substituted for
Z 5
the number of fishermen. If 1950-73 catch and effort 4
Ln
D
patterns continue in the future, certain inferences 0
can be drawn: (1) increased fishing effort (whether
commercial or recreational) will not substantially 2-5
increase the total catch, and (2) increased fishing
effort will result in division of a more or less fixed
total catch among a greater number of participants. 1956 .60 65 70 7576
Figures 5-14 indicate trends in stocks of major YEAR
species from 1950 to 1975. The catch of several major Commercial 0-Recreollionol
species has increased while, for others, the catch Source., US. Department ofCommerce, 1970: US. Department ofCommerce, 1974,
has decreased or remained stable. Various environ- US. Department of Commerce. 1975, US. Department of Commerce. 1976.

Figure 7. Flounder, Winter: U.S. Commercial Catch, 1956-1976, and U.S. Figure 9. Menhaden: U.S. Commercial Catch, 1956-1976.*
Recreational Catch, 1965 and 1970. looo__

Z 15--
V) 800
0 Z
0
12
W
I
9 W 600
Z
4
Z
0 6-- <
D
=0 400--
3

200
1956 60 65 70 7576

YEAR

e -Commercial 0 - Recreational
Source., US. Department of Commerce. 1970,' US. Department of Commerce, 19 74;
1956 60 65 70 7576
US. Department of Commerce, 1975: US Department ofCommerce. 1976 YEAR
*Little or no recreational catch
Figure 8. Gray Sea Trout: U.S. Commercial Catch, 1956-1976, and U.S. Source., US. Department of Commerce, 1974., US. Department of Commerce, 1975;
Recreational Catch, 1965 and 1970.* US. Department of Commerce, 1976.

Figure 10. Mullet: U.S. Commercial Catch, 1956-1976, and U.S. Recrea-
tional Catch, 1965 and 1970.

8 20 --

In
Z in
0
Z
0
F- 15
Fr 6 y
l- 0 cr
W
W

Z
< Z 10__ 0
(f) 4
D
0
D
0

2--

0
0

1956 60 65 70 7576 1956 60 65 70 7576
YEAR YEAR
0 =Commercial 0 = Recreational 0 = Commerc ial O= Recreational
'Weakfish Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970; US. Department ofCommerce. 19 74;
Source. US. Department of Commerce, 1970., US. Department ofCommerce, 1974, US. Department of Commerce. 1975; US. Department ofCommerce, 19 76,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975., US. Department of Commerce, 1976.

mental and biological factors, as well as commercial and wetlands is caused primarily by the maintenance
and recreational fishing, may account for the trends. and protection of navigation, landfill operations, and
As well as adding to problems associated with solid waste disposal. The areas reclaimed are gen-
the growth in fishing intensity, an increase in human erally the highly productive tidal marsh which is of
population density in the coastal zone has con- primary importance to estuarine ecology.
tributed to increased pollution rates and the destruc- The Report of the Secretary of the Interior to the
tion of wetlands which are thought to be associated U.S. Congress indicated that 7 percent of the im-
with fish production. The destruction of estuaries portant wildlife habitat had been dredged and/or
0

r+ @P+l
0)
C, CZ THOUSAND METRIC TONS
(D
C. -t sn sn THOUSAND METRIC TON
C) CD 0 t@ tz, t@ t:)
ID LW LA

(D
wl,4 A
3
3
PU

Ln
0)

0 (D 0
10
0'a 0 rn (m
(D Ln
9 )T
Q PU
CY) o Q
o 50
m 0
zi
to
Ln 0)
0 L.
cu
0 w
tz -4
+
Pi LA
pu 1:::

::1 00 CL CL 9,

m 0 a.
0 o rAo 0 go

CD
cwn gu (D c,
THOUSAND METRIC TONS @: ,
THOUSAND ME1
(D
(D .4 co ::r
N QQ 0 0 Ln

ZD
(D Pi
cn
En 3
opu 0
Q 0
'o a. J= n
I=0 @:) @l @l (n a ol
@r 0
cu Pi
- (D ;Ip
0 U)
CA @:) ao --
.(D rL -1 , 10 ko
t --0
cn -K 101
C m Cz rn (X
0
(D
cn
gu -i &n
(DW (D -;Q
CL 0 a
-4
0 0
o in.0
r+
(D m -P,
a, CL 0)
co (D @QQ 10Q
(D * o @3 (7,, @l @l @l
0-0 n @l @l in -4 t
(
(D (D
Dj Z w
50 T-+ j@ @b
(D
'40 'D %o @o
@:r (D

Table 2. Preliminary Fishery Management Plans and Final Fishery Figure 15. Catch by Foreign Vessels in the Conservation Zone, 197 5, and
Management Plans. Allowable Levels of Foreign Fishing Under FCMA, 1977.

2500 -
Preliminary Fishery Management Plans

Trawl Fisheries of Washington, Oregon, and California
Trawl Fisheries and Herring Gillnet Fishery of Eastern Bering Sea and In 2000 -
Northeastern Pacific Z
P
Sablefish Fishery of the Eastern Bering Sea and Northeastern Pacific y 1975
(r 1977
Trawl Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska UJ 1500
2 Foreign
Snail Fishery of the Eastern Bering Sea 0
Z Catch Foreign
Allocation
Eastern Bering Sea (King and Tanner Crab Fisheries)
D
0
Shrimp Fishery of the Eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska lOOO__
Seamount Groundfish Fishery of the Pacific
Hake Fisheries of the Northwestern Atlantic 1975
Foreign Trawl Fisheries of the Northwestern Atlantic (incidental catching 500 -_ Foreign
of finfish) Catch
1977
Mackerel Fishery of Northwestern Atlantic Foreign
I AULacation I
Squid Fisheries of the Northwestern Atlantic
ATLANTIC OCEAN PACIFIC OCEAN
Final Fishery Management Plans Source., US. Department ofCommerce, unpublished statistics, 1975: US. Depart-
Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the coasts of Washing- ment of Commerce, 1976.
ton, Oregon, and California
Atlantic Fisheries (Atlantic Groundfish Plan) Figure 16, Catch by Soviet Vessels in the U.S. Fisheries Conservation Zone.
by Area, 1973-1977.

high water-use industries as paper, chemical, and 500-- Alaska
textile manufacturing is projected.
With the increase in economic activity, pollution
and increased industrial use of estuarine waters 400 --
occurs. The Federal Water Pollution Control Admini- Z
0 East Coast
stration estimates that, by 1980, municipal wastes
generated by the estuarine zone population will
300--
require the use of 2,130 billion gallons of water
per year and will produce 3.6 billion pounds of waste Z
solids per year.' 0 200 --
West Coast
Efforts to manage fisheries to prevent the deple-
tion of the resource within the conservation zone,
under the FCMA, include the creation of preliminary 100--
and final management plans. Preliminary plans for
thirteen fisheries and several final management
plans have been developed (Table 2). Other efforts
include limitations on the allowable levels of foreign 1973 74 75 71 77
fishing. Preliminary indications for 1977 are that YEAR
total foreign catch will have decreased. This has Source. US. Department of Commerce. unpublished statistics. 1977.
increased the anticipated catch per unit effort by
some of the larger foreign fleets. As illustrated in the Pacific Ocean, however, was approximately 80
Figure 15, the 1977 allowable level of foreign fishing percent of the catch by foreign vessels in 1975.
Ala
,ko
t@
<: @E Coast

West .as,

under FCMA for the Atlantic Ocean was about 1/3 The decline in Soviet and Japanese catches in the
the catch by foreign fishing vessels in 197 5. The 197 7 U.S. conservation zone from 1973 thru 1977 is shown
allowable level of foreign fishing under FCMA for in Figures 16 & 17. The catch of Soviet vessels

Figure 17. Catch by Japanese Vessels in the Fisheries Conservation Zone, Figure 19. Average Monthly Number of Soviet Fishing Vessels in the
by Area 1973-1977. U.S. Fisheries Conservation Zone, by Area, 1973-1977.
2000-- 200 -

k.
1500-- W
(f) 150--
LO
Ld
> East Coast
1100 1.
Z 0 Alaska
0
Or
1000 W
y M 100--
ar 2
D
W

Z 50-- --o-west coast
V)
D
0

500

1973 74 75 76 77
East Coast YEAR

250--
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, unpublished statistics, 1973-1977
West Coast
Figure 20. Average Monthly Catch per Soviet Fishing Vessel in the
L- 1 i Fisheries Conservation Zone, by Area, 1973-1977.
1973 74 75 76 77
1250 -
YEAR
Ak\
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, unpublished statistics, 1973-1977. Total
Figure 18. Average Monthly Number of Japanese Fishing Vessels in the 1000--
U.S. Fisheries Conservation Zone, 1973-1977.

250 -
Z 750--

laska Q Alaska

200-- W
500--"
-j
Ld
W
W
> East Coast
LL 150
0 250--e-

Z 100--

1973 74 75 76 77

YEAR
50- Source., US, Department of Commerce, unpublished statistics, 1973-1977.

East Coast Wes Coast
catch in East Coast and West Coast waters has been
i T
1973 74 75 76 77 constant.
YEAR The average monthly number of Japanese
Source., US. Department of Commerce. unpublished statistics, 1973-1977. vessels fishing in the U.S. conservation zone has
been constant from 1973 to 1977 except in Alaskan
declined rapidly from 1973 thru 1977 in the East waters (Figure 18). In 1977, the average monthly
Coast and Alaskan waters and declined slightly in number of Japanese fishing vessels in Alaskan waters
1977 in West Coast waters. The catch by Japanese decreased rapidly. The average monthly number of
vessels in the U.S. conservation zone declined rapidly Soviet fishing vessels along the West Coast and
from 1973 to 1977 in Alaskan waters. The Japanese Alaska increased from 1973 to 1976, then declined
E. t Coast

as".

Figure 21. Average Monthly Catch per Japanese Fishing Vessel in the and a slight decline in Soviet fishing effort
Fisheries Conservation Zone, by Area, 1973-1977. The patterns for management of fisheries within
1500- the territorial sea, however, are less definite. Some
Total fisheries are managed under comprehensive plans,
looo__ while others are managed under regulations that have
a less than satisfactory scientific basis. Some fish-
V) eTies are continually being researched and are with-
Z 750
0 out effective management, while others are not
Alaska managed at all.
U
The problem of concurrent jurisdiction by
W
500-- West coast several states over a particular fishery may be a
major impedance to management. Figure 22 illus-
250 - - trates this situation. Bluefish, for example, occur in
the waters of about 14 states while menhaden occur
East C.s
't in the waters of about 16 states. This accounting
does not separate species or races or geographically
1973 74 75 11 77 isolated stocks. Since each individual state creates
YEAR
Source: US. Department of Commerce. unpublished statistics, 1973-1977 laws for fisheries management, differing regulations
sometimes exist among states. For example, Table 3
in 1977 (Figure 19). Soviet vessels fishing in East shows that for striped bass in various Northeast
Coast waters declined from 1970 to 1973. Following states, size limits vary from Maine and South
these trends, the Japanese and Soviet catches and Carolina, which have no limitations, to New Jersey,
efforts in the conservation zone might be expected which requires the fish to be 12 inches to be
to decrease. Preliminary indications of Japanese and retained by a recreational fisherman. Some states
Soviet fishing effort (Figures 20 & 21) show a have divided authority Within the state, which adds
slight increase in the total Japanese fishing effort further difficulties to fishery management in that

Figure 22. Fisheries Management, State Jurisdiction, by Species, 1976.

ngeness Crab Bluefish

Salmon

Menhaden

Source: US Department of Commerce, 1976.

Table 3. Size Limits for Striped Bass in Various Northeast States. Figure 23. Management Budget and Total Value of Marine Catch for
Several States.
125 -
State Regulation

Maine No Limit
100-- 0
New Hampshire Minimum: 16 inches to fork of tail
New York Minimum: 16 inches to fork of tail
0
New Jersey Minimum: 18 inches, commercial 0
q 75
0
12 inches, recreational 0
Maximum: 20 pounds in Delaware

River
50-
Maryland Minimum: 12 inches
W
Z
Maximum: 15 pounds, cr
<
Match I - April 30; 2 25--
1 per day over 32 inches
Delaware Minimum: 12 inches

Maximum: 20 pounds in Delaware
River 100 400 1000 2000
Virginia Minimum: 14 inches to tip of tail MANAGEMENT BUDGET($1,000)
Maximum: 2 per day over 40 inches
North Carolina Minimum: 12 inches* Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1977.
South Carolina No Limit Figure 24. Management Budget and Enforcement Budget for Fisheries
*Virginia-North Carolina Agreement, limit 4, minimum 20 inches, on the Management for Several States.'
Dan River, from the Banister River to the Brantley Steam Plant Dam. 2500

state. The level of funding may be a further cori- 2000--
straint in many of the states. In Figure 23, the -
0
0
management budget of several states is plotted q
against the value of the catch and considerable 1500--
W
variability is noted among the states.
(D
In some cases, a high proportion of the total
Z
LU
management expenditure goes to enforcement 2 1000--
LU
U
(Figure 24). Ir
0
LL
Z
Currently, a number of institutions exist that LU
may deal with the territorial sea management. These 500--
are:
1. The states. Each state has the authority to
manage fisheries within its legal boundaries. 100 400 1000 20'00
2. Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions. MANAGEMENT BUDGET ($1,000)
Three Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, the 'The line is provided as an index to show an equal apportionment between
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the the enforcement budget and the management budget.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission were source'us Department of Commerce. 1977.
established to develop a joint program for the pro- Under FCMA, the Regional Fisheries Management
motion and protection of marine fisheries. Regulatory Councils will prepare, monitor, and revise manage-
management authority may be granted to the com- ment plans for fisheries to achieve and. maintain
missions by member states. the optimum yield from each fishery, while prevent-
3. Regional Fisheries Management Councils, ing overfishing of the fish stocks.

4. State-Federal Fishery Management Program. Fisheries of the United States, 1975. NOAA, NMFS. Wash-
These programs were developed by the National ington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.
Marine Fisheries Service to advise the states and Fisheries of the United States, 1976. NOAA. NMFS. Wash-
assist them in cooperating among themselves on ington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976.
the management of important interstate, marine U.S. Department of the Interior. The National Estuarine Pollu-
tion Study. Report of the Secretary of the Interior to the
resources. This program includes interstate fish- U.S. Congress. Washington D.C.: Government Printing
eries that exist inside and outside the territorial Office, 1970.
sea (although the majority are within the territorial
sea). Funding for the development of such manage-
ment is available; however, no specific legislative
authority exists for this program. Notes
5. The Coastal Zone Management Program. The 1. U.S. Congress, House, H.R. 200, Public Law 94-265, 94th Cong.,
Coastal Zone Management Program provides for state 13 April 1976.
management programs to determine objectives, 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1976.
policies, and standards to guide public and private 3. U.S. Department of Interior, 1970.
uses of lands and waters in the coastal zone. The 4. 1970.
Coastal Zone Management Act provides grants to
accomplish the above objectives for (1) development
of coastal zone plans, (2) their implementation,
(3) the execution of the coastal energy impact pro-
gram, and (4) research studies and training to
support state coastal zone management plans and
coastal zone management. To date, the coastal zone
funding has not been applied to interstate fishery
management.
At present there is no clear integration of these
five counterparts. Thus, while the patterns for fishery
management appear to. be set in the conservation
zone, effective management of the fisheries of the
territorial sea will most likely entail the creation
of a method for integrating the resources of the
individual states, the Interstate Marine Fisheries
Commission, the Regional Fishery Management
Councils, the State-Federal Fishery Management
Program, and the Coastal Zone Management Program.
In this way, focus may be directed to the contem-
porary imperative of making better and more cost-
efficient management decisions for our fishery
resources.

Literature Cited

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1970 Salt-water Angling Survey.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Washington
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970.
The United States Marine Fishery Resource. NOAA. NMFS.
Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974.

Coastal Belt Uses and Needs: Oil and Gas

W. L BeM
Senior Staff Environmental Specialist, Shell Oil Company

The primary @purpose of my being here today area of most interest to this audience, in view of the
is to discuss with you the needs of the oil industry lease sale in the mid-Atlantic last August, the still-
in the coastal zone. At present, oil and gas supply pending litigation on that sale, and the sale scheduled
75 percent of our energy and will continue to be our for November 1977 in the North Atlantic. The idea
dominant energy source for the rest of the century. that there might be oil or gas deposits off the
Our problem is to continue to find and produce new Atlantic coast has been around for many years, but
and reliable sources of these substances until alterna- only recently has it taken on the proportions of a
tive sources can be developed. national priority.
Although the future prospects of offshore oil and Oil development off the East Coast of the United
gas development on the Atlantic coast will likely States is often viewed in exaggerated terms. To some,
come to your minds immediately, I should point out offshore oil exploration and development means
that many Oil-Telated activities are already present heavy industrial activity upsetting traditional life-
in the coastal zone. Historically, a large portion of styles and harming the area's environmental re-
the industry's refining capacity, product storage and sources. At the other extreme, offshore oil and gas
distribution facilities, and product and crude oil development is viewed as an economic panacea,
transport have been located in or adjacent to what with new jobs and revenues propelling a region
we now identify as the coastal zone. These facilities suffering from chronic unemployment and economic
were located near the coast for sound economic ill health into a new era of prosperity.
reasons. An efficient, water-based transportation In reality, neither view is correct. The arrival
system to move the vast quantities of petroleum of the off shore oil industry will not bring with it
products and fuel directly benefited the consumer. serious environmental consequences. And, while it
And as our dependence on imported oil and petro- will bring jobs, it won't mean instant wealth or a
leum products grows, the need for these kinds of "boom town" bonanza. As a starting point, it is
facilities will increase. important for all of us to understand just what OCS
But let's focus our attention for the moment on development will and will not do, so that any evalua-
the new activities associated with developing oil tion of these effects or benefits is balanced and
and gas resources on the outer continental shelf - objective. OCS development is too important to be
activities which have attracted the attention of the decided by emotion and wild conjecture. This is
various local, state, and federal government bodies especially true when discussing the subject of this
which have the responsibility for planning and conference: coastal belt uses and needs.
regulating them. To gain insight into probable developments,
As most of you know, the most promising area let me attempt to answer four questions:
for finding new domestic supplies of oil and gas is 1. What is the justification for these activities?
the outer continental shelf. The Atlantic OCS is the 2. What are the specific industry needs?

3. When will the various activities occur? specific needs which must be provided for in the
4. What are the probable impacts? coastal areas to support outer continental shelf oil
First, what is the justification? Today, the U. S. ac 'tivities. For purposes of this discussion, I have
is using about 18 million barrels of oil a day, 44 divided these activities into two phases. The first
percent of which is imported. That percentage is phase is exploration. The second phase, which is
rising fast. Shell believes that this increased reliance contingent upon the success of the exploratory effort,
on imports must and can be slowed, in spite of an encompasses development and production. Let's
expected growth in domestic demand of about 3 look at these phases in sequence. And as we look,
percent per year. But we must first accomplish several we will get a feel for time of occurrence and likely
major goals: We must adopt the conservation ethic impacts.
explicit in President Carter's energy message. We Seismic information is the fundamental presale
must explore extensively onshore and offshore in exploration tool to locate offshore formations favor-
the U.S., particularly in Alaska, off the West Coast able for the accumulation of oil and gas. This is
and off the Atlantic. Third, we must substantially the first step in determining if commercial quantities
increase coal production. Lastly, and this may sound of oil and gas are present and guides us in deter-
exaggerated, we must complete the equivalent of one mining how much to bid in a lease sale. Seismic data
nuclear- powered, 1,000 megawatt generator plant acquisition began in the Atlantic as far back as 1967.
every two weeks thro'ughout the 1980s. As many as six seismic vessels have worked simul-
A cut in any of these factors, we believe, must taneously along the Atlantic coast. While this activity
be replaced by increased imports of foreign oil. Why? is largely complete, it will continue to some degree
Simply because alternative energy sources cannot throughout the life of oil development. When in
be developed and brought into production fast operation, a seismic vessel requires port facilities
enough to improve our near-term supply, Thus, in the area of operation for biweekly crew changes
development of the OCS is an important factor in and supplies. Beneficial impacts are limited to those
solving our energy problem. connected with dock rental and supply. opportunities
With this background let's look at the potential for direct employment are very limited. Similarly,
for oil and gas supply in the Atlantic OCS. The U.S. shoreside negative impacts are negligible.
Geological Survey estimates there may be from 2 to The next exploratory operation is drilling to
4 billion barrels of oil, and 5 to 14 trillion cubic locate and determine the size of oil and gas resources.
feet of gas in the Atlantic offshore. Shell believes However, this activity cannot proceed until a sale
that no one can accurately predict the amount of has been held and an operator has obtained from
oil and gas which might be present in any one specific the EPA, USGS, Corps of Engineers, etc., the necessary
area. We prefer to look at the overall opportunities permits for the acreage on which he was the success-
in the U.S., then pinpoint locations where our geo- ful bidder.
logical studies suggest the best odds for finding A semisubmersible or floating drilling rig is
petroleum. However, we do believe that 60 percent normally used in offshore water depths from 150
of new oil discoveries and 35 percent of new gas to 1,200 feet. The average cost for such a rig,
discoveries will come from the OCS. including rig supplies and transportation, is between
Viewing the prospects in this manner, we are $45,000 and $65,000 a day. This rig normally employs
interested in all three areas of the Atlantic which 50 to 60 workers. It seems probable that five or
show promise - the Georges Bank area off New six rigs would be in operation at the same time
England; the Baltimore Canyon off New Jersey, New in the Baltimore Canyon, whenever the litigation is
York, Maryland; and the Southeast Georgian Embank- settled and permits are finally issued. This kind
ment and the Blake Plateau in the South Atlantic. of rig would also be used in the Georges Bank.
Each of these areas should be explored and developed Looking at onshore activity to support the
as soon as practical to aid in the solution of our exploratory drilling operation, the supply base we
energy problem. used near Tampa, Florida, to conduct our first off-
Now let's talk about the second question: the shore Florida exploratory drilling, was typical. The

17.

drill site was located some 50 miles west in the also ferry personnel to and from the offshore sites
Gulf of Mexico. The base, shared by Shell and two from these bases.
contractors, employed 32 people, including 12 local In the development stage, the work boat previ-
residents, and covered less than 10 acres. Unfortu- ously mentioned is again employed to perform the
nately, no oil or gas was found offshore, and this same essential' supply support function for the
supply base is no longer in use. offshore production platform. The helicopter is also
Closer to New England is the former Quonset employed in the same manner to ferry the platform
Point Naval Air Station at Davisville, Rhode Island. work crews to and from theiY offshore production
Shell rents approximately five acres of dock and location. A pipe lay barge is used to install pipe-
storage space that would be used as our initial base lines in offshore waters between the production
for exploratory activities in the mid-Atlantic. platform and shoreline processing facilities.
A work boat carries drill pipe, machinery, mud The shore where the pipeline crosses is un-
materials, and other supplies to the drilling rig. disturbed, except for markers to indicate the pipe-
A typical boat has a crew of eight and measures about line's position.
180-200 feet in length. Crew personnel are trans- A Shell gas plant in Texas typifies the type of
ported to and f 'Yom the offshore rig by helicopter. onshore facility one might expect along the Atlantic
In the Baltimore Canyon, our activity would be some coast to handle potential gas production. The area
60 miles off the New Jersey shore. Thus, we plan covered is about 20 acres. A plant this size could
to have a helicopter base site in the Atlantic City, process almost all of the gas that may be found
New Jersey area. in the Baltimore Canyon or Georges Bank region.
The impact of the initial exploratory effect is It isn't necessary to locate a gas plant at oceanside.
slight. Activities in the coastal area are all related A plant can be built many miles inland, away from
to the support base. Now, let's move to the develop- heavily populated or recreational areas.
ment and production phase. This assumes, of course, An onshore pumping station is small in con-
that a commercial find is made. The number and figuration. Its purpose is to move offshore production
size of facilities and resulting impacts cannot be to onshore storage. It requires minimal staffing, no
accurately judged until we know the amount and more than one person around the clock.
location of the oil or gas resource. We can, however, In the course of developing an offshore
look at the kind of facilities that will be needed discovery, various onshore-based service companies
and activities which will occur. are needed. Some very specialized service companies
First, lef s look at timing. would be required. However, for the majority of
If oil and gas are found, platform design nor- general support services, such as welders, machinists,
mally takes about a year. Another 3 1/2 years are caterers, etc., the industry would look to local,
needed to actually build and install the structure. existing companies. The industry would not normally
Development drilling can take another 2 years. Then add new facilities, nor would our presence mean a
would come the installation of production facilities dramatic increase in jobs.
and construction of pipelines to get the oil and gas - So, what does all this mean to you? How many
to shore. As much as 6-10 years can elapse before jobs will be spawned in New England by offshore
the first oil or gas would reach a 'refinery or a gas development? Of course the question can't be
plant for processing. answered until the amount and location of the oil
Now let's look at the offshore development and gas resources are known. The Interior Depart-
operations and their relation to the coastal area. ment estimates as many as 10,250 new jobs for
In South Louisiana, where offshore structures aye New England, supporting a population of some
built, there is a platform fabrication yard. Such 25,500 people. Putting this in perspective, this is
yayds are not likely to be located on the Atlantic less than one percent of the population of the
unless a large find is made. From offshore support region. We estimate that 75 percent of the new jobs
bases in south Louisiana, boats carry supplies and created would go to local people, people already
equipment to the rigs and platforms. Helicopters living here. Thus, population growth would be slow,

orderly, and limited in all likelihood to a few com- oceans annually comes from offshore production.
munities. And our record continues to improve. That is not
When will it begin to happen? to say there will be no oil spills or accidents. All
On the negative side, the 1976 Baltimore Canyon human undertakings are subject to error and mis-
lease sale, as previously mentioned, is still in liti- judgments. But, we must and will do everything
gation. District Court Judge Weinstein ruled for possible to prevent oil spills, and history has shown
plaintiffs to cancel the sale and the case has been that we have been increasingly successful.
appealed to the Federal Appeals Court in New York. In summary, what effect will OCS development
Should the court rule favorably and the sale be have on the coastal zone? Very simply, there are
allowed to stand, we must then obtain drilling three areas of probable impact. These are pipelines,
permits from various governmental agencies, includ- onshore support bases, and personnel requirements.
ing the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological All other aspects of our activities can be conducted
Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency. outside the coastal zone. As you have already seen,
It is unlikely that any drilling activity could begin these three probable areas of impact will have no
this year. appreciable effect on any coastal area. I hope it is
As for the Georges Bank area off New England, clear from my discussion that we are talking about
a lease sale is scheduled for November 1977. If very small numbers, and limited space requirements.
there are no court challenges, and if permits can Finally, let me say in the perspective of our
be obtained in a timely fashion, we might expect energy situation today that development of the
drilling on that acreage to begin by midyear 1978.* Atlantic OCS will not totally resolve our energy
Now, let's turn for a moment to environmental problem - but it is an important link in the chain
considerations. The need for a clean, safe environ- of undertakings required to better our position. Some
ment is fundamental, and safeguards against pollu- impacts on coastal areas will result from OCS'activi-
tion are a basic necessity. In the nearly thirty years ties - both positive and negative. In my view such
since offshore development began, more than 2 1, 000 impacts are small in relation to the great need to
wells have been drilled in the U.S. waters. In this move forward to resolve our energy problem.
time only one accident has caused severe, but tein- As we search for solutions to our energy prob-
porary, pollution to beaches and shores - the highly lems, we must do so rationally and sensibly. The
publicized Santa Barbara spill. And while any oil decisions we make are too important to be decided
spill is bad news, what is generally overlooked is by emotional reactions and preconceived notions. For
that independent studies show there has been no these reasons, I am particularly pleased to have
lasting damage from any offshore spill - including been here today to share these thoughts with you.
Santa Barbara. For example, a recent report by the Let us hope that, together, we will make wise
National Academy of Science analyzing all available decisions.
technical information on oil on water concluded:
"The effect of oil contamination on human health
appears not to be cause for alarm."
Also, a two-year study of effects on marine life
in the area of offshore oil production in the Gulf of
Mexico, where More than 16,000 wells have been
drilled, concluded: "Every indication of good eco-
logical health is present." This study was conducted
by twenty-thTee scientists from thirteen universities
and research institutes.
According to the same National Academy of
Science study quoted above, only about 1.3 percent
of the petroleum hydrocarbons entering the world's

.As of the date of publication, the lease sale has not been conducted.

Transportation in the Coastal Belt

John W. Devanney
Professor of Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Today I shall talk about transportation, and the on oil spills over the past four or five years. Several
conflicts which it raises within the coastal belt. From interesting things should be noted. First of all, there's
among the number of interesting problems that are little statistical data on the notorious Liberian fleet,
associated with transportation, I have chosen to cover which is growing in tonnage each year. Also, one clear
two issues. One concerns the regulatory controls pattern, and a disturbing one, is that old ships tend
which should be placed on tankers operating near our to spill more than young ships. It so happens that
shores. A second issue involves the proportion of draft restrictions in U.S. ports benefit the newer
our waterfront which should be allocated to termi- ships. But we are the ones who are going to pay for
nals. This latter question has been highly publicized, whatever rules are in effect in our ports, and if the
although I dare'say that perhaps 95 percent of the older vessels are forced to compete with the more
people in this room have not thought seriously about expensive and more efficient newer ships, perhaps
the issue. the rules might be adjusted to give the older vessels
The tanker regulation issue has of course been a greater chance in the competition.
brought about by tanker spills and discharges. What Discharge of oil ballast is by far the largest
do we know about these problems? In the,course of source of oil spillage, and techniques such as load
normal tanker operations, we spill tons of petroleum on top cannot, for the most part, greatly affect
each year into the ocean, much of this through tank operations on American routes, which are largely
cleaning. It is estimated that between 100,000 and productive routes. Load on top is expensive, and
300,000 tons of petroleum enter the ocean each year could represent a five to ten percent increase in
through tank cleaning, a figure which represents transportation costs. It would place some limit on
between one-fifth and one-fourth of all man-made how much oil each tanker could discharge, and leave
petroleum discharged annually into the ocean. it up to the industry to figure out which combina-
More petroleum enters the ocean from tank tion of segregated ballast and other techniques is
cleaning than from oil spills. Further, it should be cheapest. But I am completely convinced that such
noted that almost all the oil spilled within a given restrictions as double bottoms, tank- size limitations,
year comes from a few very large spills, usually etc., will have almost no effect on the amount of
not more than three or four. Generally, the several oil that is spilled. The reason for this is that the
largest spills during a year account for 80 to 90 greatest bulk is spilled in incidents involving the
percent of all oil spills worldwide, and equal the complete loss of a ship, in which case such measures
total amount of petroleum that enters the ocean from are ineffective, Double bottoms, for example, would
ship losses due to grounding, collision, or explosion. not have helped the Argo Merchant
Of the total tanker spillage each year, less than ten With respect to tanker spills, the emphasis
percent is contributed by operational spills. should be on personnel training, operating proce-
We at MIT have compiled fairly complete data dures, communication and navigation gear, and the

required use of the English language in intervessel and they take no account of the fact that there is
communications. Minimal navigation and gear currently a great surplus of foreign flag vessels.
requirements, coupled with adequate Coast Guard What would really be accomplished by this bill
inspection, would cost very little, yet would greatly would be the subsidy for a few years of 100,000
reduce spillage. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic and American shipyard workers, as well as of 3,000
political need for doing something concrete, and American seamen. Wouldn't it be simpler to give
the expedience of doing something spectacular, these men $30,000 a year outright, and save our
rather than what reality dictates, have saddled us steel, our energy, and other resources?
with the costs of a series of expensive tanker design Nevertheless, the cargo resolution over-
requirements which will do almost nothing beneficial whelmingly passed both houses of Congress before
for our environment. the Argo Merchant incident, and we can be sure it
There is another important subject to which I will pass again. The last time, President Ford vetoed
would like to call your attention. I fear that the the bill; this time it will be up to President Carter.
Congress, under the guise of protecting our interests, You may ask how such an atrocious piece of legisla-
is planning to enact an expensive regulation, and tion can go through Congress with such flying colors?
one that has no direct bearing on environmental if there are any political people here, I would suggest
protection. This proposed legislation places a restric- you could do no better than to study the American
tion on the amount of imported oil that can be Shipping Lobby, a fantastic organization. You might
carried on non-American flag vessels. The arguments entitle your thesis "How Cheap Is Your Congress-
for this legislation are based on a balance of pay- man?"
ments, jobs, and environmental protection. A second transportation issue to which I would
At MIT, we have taken the time to analyze this call your attention is, that of container terminals.
legislation. In this analysis we have had to make The problem here is that -when it comes to port
certain assumptions. One of these concerns the initial facilities, the public is convinced that the more
costs of currency, that is, the market exchange rates cargo which is handled the better the facility. As a
in the absence of any controls. We have also made result, here in the New England region, we are sub-
assumptions about American shipyard workers, if sidizing essentially uneconomic port activities. Our
they were not building the new vessels which would criterion for success with regard to marine-caTgO
be required by the legislation, as well as assumptions handling is not how much profit the operations make
about what U.S. seamen would be making if they but how much money they spend. The economics
weren't working on the additional U.S. ships. here in New England practically guarantee that we
If one assumes that foreign currency is at present cannot make money in container handling except in
15 percent under value, and that a seaman working relatively small-scale operations. Yet Massport in
on a foreign tanker would make half what he would Boston informs us that they aye hopelessly congested,
on an American flag vessel, and that an American and need more space. Although more space for them
shipyard worker would make 80 percent of his ship- means losing still more money, they are still going to
yard wage in other employment, then the account get it.
ends up something like this: The total cost of the All of the New England port cities appear con-
proposed legislation to the American taxpayer would vinced that they should reserve their waterfronts
be about 4.5 billion dollars a year. The annual gain for urban industrial uses. As a result, in every large
to the American flag seamen and shipyard laborers New England port you will see large tracts of water-
would be 4.8 billion dollars, but there are many front for such a use - waiting, and waiting, and
other costs involved. Taking account of all the waiting. Visitors from the West Coast and Florida
plusses and minuses, we have calculated that the are completely aghast. Here is prime waterfront
total cost to the nation of the proposed bill would sitting fallow. Invariably, you will find that the
be about 3.2 billion dollars per year. property is in the hands of some public or semi-
These figures assume that all the ships needed public agency which is insulated from supply and
under the new law will have actually been built, demand factors. If the private sector could get its

hands on the property it would turn it to recreational
uses. Currently marina operators in Boston are getting
better than $35 a boat foot, and are minting money.
We could put 900 boats in Charlestown and 2,000
in South Boston in the space which is designated for
container terminals. One of the funny things about
container terminals is that they represent an occu-
pation which is anything but labor- intensive. The
container terminal generates about four jobs per acre;
there aren't many activities which have a lower ratio
of jobs per acre.
We blame a lot of our pollution problems on the
marketplace, and often with good cause. But it is
the public sector which is responsible for the mis-
allocation of waterfront property. The time has come
to tell marine transportation that it has to compete
with all the other uses of potentially valuable urban
waterfront space.

Marine Recreation: Uses and Needs

Niels Rorholm

Professor of Resource Economics and Sea Grant Coordinator,
University of Rhode Island

Marine recreation is certainly not a new form of uses of the sea in one important respect the
recreation, but it has grown very rapidly both in "product' is consumed on the premises. Thus
quantity and in variety during the past 25 years. resources (air, sea, land, capital), producers (marina
I won't attempt to describe the quantitative owners, hotel owners, etc.), and consumers (swim-
growth with numbers, for one of the difficulties with mers, boat people, fishermen, etc.) are in intimate
outdoor recreation is the matter of measuring it - touch with one another through the entire produc-
no one agrees on the numbers, and in fact, they are tion, marketing, and consumption process. Add to
not very meaningful, primarily because there has that the fact that though all feel in some vague
been no consistent impartial collection of data on sense that they have rights to the basic natural
which to base time series. It is generally agreed, resource - and indeed they do - some have more
though, that marine recreation is an activity that has influence than others in the way local or state
substantial social and economic ramifications. These governments affect access to and use of the coast
range from paying more for a year-round residence and its waters.
from which you can see and smell the sea, through These characteristics make marine recreation
talking and sunning at the edge of the sea, or walk- extremely difficult to manage, and by "manage" I
ing the marshes and dunes, to diving, sailing, surfing, mean here the determination and execution of
and swimming in or on the sea itself. policies that affect access to and costs of recreation.
The sea encourages variety in use not only It is perhaps worth pointing out that, although
because it changes constantly in response to currents coastal management bodies may not necessarily set
and weather, but also because of the infinite variety prices for recreation services, their actions have
of environments that are created by land-sea inter- profound effects on prices and costs to consumers.
action - from the quiet coastal pond or lagoon to For example, a policy of discouraging the building
the thundering surf. of additional'marina slips will very quickly lead to
Marine recreation, in common with other marine higher prices for dockage in that area.
activities, depends for its very existence on the Marine recreation is probably the one use of
maintenance of certain characteristics of the coastal the coastal belt - or at least that part of it extending,
belt, most of which is in the public domain. Thus, say, ten miles from shore - that is the most demand-
the quality of marine recreation is likely to depend ing of natural and of public resources.. Requirements
heavily on the functioning of government, either for natural resources are high because of the pressure
through income redistribution (for public beaches of population on a limited shoreline. The require-
and parks for example), or through ensuring that ments for public resources arise first out of the
costs of production or of housing are fully internal- necessity for holding valuable shoreland for public
ized (air- and water-pollution control). use and second from the tremendously expensive net-
But most marine recreation differs from other work of roads and bridges needed to ensure access

Table 1. Suggested Resource Needs and Output Characteristics of expectation from recreation (output or product) and
"Going to the Beach." the inputs or resources required are quite different
for the different kinds of beach experiences.
.Rii ource,ne I venture the statement that for the maj or propor-
foreshore free of vegetation; accessible by land. tion of the beachgoing population these three types
Social Beach of beach environments would be poor substitutes for
`Culpfltslor- products.- Swimming, - getting a tan, socializing. being seen, one another; so poor in fact that they may probably
having fun, etc. be classified as different products. The good news
Resource needs: Sandy, fairly wide beach,- ocean site preferred, large is that this stretches the limited natural resources
parking area, high-capacity access road, nearby low- to mid-priced food that produce beach experiences; the bad news is that
and beverage service, pavillion facilities, lifeguards, preferably other in planning for beaches, it is not enough to use a
entertainment nearby. Highly cyclical use. Heavy weekend use. few average capacity figures and, from those, deter-
Scenic Beach mine the need for public beaches. Unless it is known
Outputs or products: Swimming, getting away from it all, enjoying nature, what a given beach will likely be called upon to
sunbathing, walking for exercise. produce, it is not possible to predict the resource
Resource needs: Less sand beach and less width needed, ocean pre- loads or the associated public service requirement.
ferred, less parking, no special roads, may be difficult of access, One could make the same breakdown for several
limited lifeguard service, more even use. other kinds of marine recreation, but the point has
probably been made - a great variety of experiences
"Mother and Child" Beach is possible and this leads to great variety of resource
Outputs or products., Getting out of the house, socializing, tanning and combinations needed. This "stretches" the natural
swimming, healthier children. resource, but also reinforces the specialization of
Resource needs: Sand, no surf, close to home, public transportation wants and thus leads to a lack of substitution among
preferable, average road needs, fairly even use through summer, could products.
probably be artificial, playground equipment limited pavillion facilities,
lifeguards. So far we have discussed marine recreation as
if the sole purpose behind resource allocation to
to these areas far in excess of the nonweekend those activities were to provide opportunities for
needs. The wants for shore-based recreation are such the public and those owning shore property to "re-
that were all the walkable shore available to public create" themselves in, on, and by the water. That is
access, one would probably not be able to get out an idealistic if not downright incorrect view. The
of public hearing between Portland, Maine, and driving forces behind such resource allocation vary
NorfolL Virginia. on a summer weekend. In fact, from the above purpose, typically motivating public
things are a lot more crowded than that, for the officials to seek personal financial gain. But they
market system has been at work over the years, include also such activities as trying to keep out
satisfying the demand for private recreation on the industry in favor of tourism, and subsequently
edge of the public domain, with the result that attempting to keep out the commercial necessities
the ability of the public to get to its domain and there for successful tourism in favor of unchanged access
to do "its thing" has been greatly diminished. Only to and competition for the local natural environment.
limited amounts of shoreline are available for public This is often known as preserving a way of life,
use. a very understandable desire on the part of local
But all is not lost for, as we mentioned above, the populations when this is a nice way of life. (Please
variety of experiences characteristic of the marine note that resource allocation to a given use need not
environment are at least equal to the variety of be a conscious decision, but can result from failure
consumers'wants for different types of marine recrea- to allocate it to, or permit it to be employed in,
tion. To illustrate the variety even within what we other uses.)
often think of as identical kinds of recreation, one If the "re- creators," their suppliers, the resource
need only look at some descriptions of "going to the owners (on land) and the regulators are going to get
beach." From Table 1, it is evident that both the along in the future as more and more people

"discover" marine recreation, we are going to need to ing incremental-product would occur fairly soon. If,
know a lot more about the needs and results of on the other hand, the number of fish caught is a
marine recreation than is currently known. In what much more important ingredient of the experience,
seems to me a very complicated area, we need to then one would expect incremental product to
know what in fact is the role of recreation in keeping diminish more slowly and a given length of beach
fit physically and mentally, and what aspects of could produce a relatively greater total amount of
recreation affect these processes. It amounts to recreation product. if we don't know the nature of
nothing more nor less than knowing the nature of the product we can't plan for its production and
the "product' that is being consumed. Let me distribution or allocation.
illustrate why it is important. If solitude is an im- In addition, we must know the production
portant aspect of fishing from beaches at night for process, including spillovers and externalities. This
bluefish or striped bass, then one obviously would will have to include employment and income effects,
not double the amount of recreation output by, for for recreation is often used as a tool for regional
example, doubling the parking facilities to permit economic development.
twice the number of people to participate; diminish- Table 2 shows a partial list of variables about

Table 2. Partial List of Productive Factors for Selected Types of Recreation.*
Marina- Ramp-
Social Scenic Summer Based Launched
Beach Beach Residences Boats Boats

ftoductive, Factors
I .Wide sandy beaches, ft .4
2. Narrow sandy beaches, ft. 4.1
3. Other beach or shore, ft 40
4. Protected shore, ft 1.4 less
5. Land/coast ratio 315 176 172 517 greater
6. Land area, sq. ft 126 722 6,900 724 same
7. Water area, sq. ft 200
8. Associated physical environ,
features
9. Private investment dollars 4,200 660
10. Public investment, direct
dollars 8.40 82.60 M 20
11. Private costs, incl. capital
services dollars 50.00 40.00 H 571.00 274.00
12. Public cost, incl. capital
services dollars 15.00 35.00 M 4.00 10.00
13. Water quality
14. Employment, NO

Associated Outputs

1. Improved environment food
2. Food
3. Local personal income generated
4. Local taxes
5. Other taxes

Associated Inputs

1. Public investment dollars
2. Annual public cost, incl.
capital services H M L L M
capital services H M L L M
3. Loss in environmental
quality

*Numbers are rough approximations from limited numbers of observations. The base is per 100 recreation days.

which we need information for intelligent coastal rather than alleviated tension. And that, it would
management in recreation. They are not all directly appear, is a sure way for an affluent society to
quantifiable, but we must at least be able to describe jeopardize its productive vigor and mental balance.
them.. Recreation, then, can be viewed as an aspect of
2
Before deciding it is an easy task to fill out and tension management. Considering the pressures
complete Table 2, remember that we don't really of today's, world, I suggest that perceptive planning
know how to define and measure recreation. But I for recreational opportunities in and by the sea is
can't stress enough how important it is for our very important both socially and economically.
public management agencies to have better informa- Up to now, at least on the U.S. East Coast,
tion with which to attack this problem. there have been very limited conflicts between
Let us briefly try to look into the future with recreational and commercial uses of the seas. They
respect to growth and conflicts in marine recreation. will begin to appear, though, and the most likely
Participation in marine recreation does not candidates would seem to be water pollution from
appear to slow down when increases in dispoEable energy production, commercial catch of certain
income either moderate or are reversed. on the species of fish and shellfish, and traffic conflicts
contrary, it keeps increasing. Hence, policymakers with commercial shipping. The most limiting con-
must decide - rather more quickly than they would flicts, however, will probably be among different
otherwise have to - whether participation is going kinds of marine recreation, for example, housing
to be limited by crowding that can destroy the and, marinas, housing and beaches, in fact among
recreational experience, by pricing out the less nearly all aspects of so-called private and so-called
affluent, or by some other method of allocation. public recreation and particularly between indi-
This decision is extremely important for it will affect viduals who live in a given area and those who make
the quality as well as the distribution of recreation. their living from the tourist services sector. The
Recognizing that, to at least a limited extent, second most frequent conflict seems to occur within
the pricing option will always be at work within our a given use itself - crowding. A study of boat
system, let me explain why I believe we must not owners, for example, indicated this was one of the
rely too heavily on the crowding option to do the factors that seriously threatened the enjoyment
allocation for us. I believe that our increasingly people received from boat-based recreation. 3
specialized economic system generates a need for To handle the conflicts, we need first of all
diversity in recreational opportunities to offset to know what is going on. That seems to call for
the monotony of specialization. This belief is based some fairly basic research in sociology- psychology.
on my acceptance of two premises. One is that variety But, in addition, we need a better information base:
is a basic need of man along with food, shelter, here salt-water fishing licenses, registration of all
etc. 1 The second is that if basic needs (such as boats, and a change in coding in the censuses of
variety) are denied, tensions rise. Thus, the more we manufacturers and trade could help. Finally, we need
specialize in our roles as workers, the more we to make some tough decisions about how free the
generate a need for other activities which, together public domain is. For example, if lives can be saved,
with work, produce a variety of experiences necessary ought not commercial shipping to be compelled to
for mental health. But if the product is not there, stay in shipping lanes in coastal waters; if because
that is to say if the experience that is. sought is of low turbidity a given spot has a comparative
denied, then tensions are not -released through a advantage for diving, might that sport not receive
variety of activities; instead, they are increased some preference there. This is not quite water zoning
through thwarted expectations. For example, if at its inflammatory worst, but rather it is the kind
instead of solitude you get crowding and snagged of resource allocation that firms and nations have
fishing lines, if instead of quiet you get traffic always had to practice when their means of produc-
noise and rock and roll, and indeed to many people tion have been exceedingly scarce relative to their
if you get quiet instead of rock and roll, the end needs. Today our coastal belt is exceedingly scarce
result of the recreation will likely be increased relative to our wants.

We don't have much time. it is my fervent hope
that we will see close cooperation on all levels of
government in managing both the land and the water
part of the coastal belt. Once that is assured, then
we need to address the question of federal-state
guidelines for land use, so we can make a solid
dent in the altogether too insular local zoning powers
- powers that are a great hindrance to an optimum
combination of public and private resources in
coastal uses.

Notes
1. See, for example: Irving A. Spaulding, "Socio-Cultural Values
of Marine Recreational Fishing," in Marine RecTeational
Fisheries, ed. Henry Clapper (Washington, D.C.: Sport
Fishing Institute, 1976).
2. Spaulding, ibid.
3. Niels Royholm, "Boats and Their People," University of Rhode
Island Marine Technical Report 52 (Kingston, R.I.: 1976).

Offshore Oil Development and the Fishing
Industry. The Georges Bank Case

Part One. An Overview of the Two Industries and an Assessment of
Potential Damage to Fishery Resources and Losses in Fishing
Ground

Stephen Olsen

Coordinator, Graduate School of Oceanography, Coastal Resources Center, University
of Rhode Island

The Coastal Resources Center recently com- share of the total catch and important fish stocks
pleted, for the New England Regional Commission, an rapidly declined and became overfished. Figure 2
eighteen-month study entitled Fishing and Petroleum gives an indication of the size of the domestic
Interactions on Georges Bank. Volume 11 is an atlas New England industry measured in terms of fish-
showing the distribution of fishery resources, fishing ermen.
grounds, and areas of interest to the petroleum
industries. One purpose of the atlas was to underscore
how poor available data is on several important IM
topics, Volume 112 examines several potential areas
of conflict in considerable detail and summarizes
relevant data on the two industries. In this paper we 40,
will touch upon some of the highlights of the study.
Georges Bank lies between Cape Cod, Massa-
000- '30
chusetts, and Cape Sable, Nova Scotia, and includes
some 12,000 square miles within the 100 fathom
700
-.20
isobath. It is one of the world's richest fishing
grounds and an important spawning ground for 600- V -110
several major species. It may also overlie reserves
of oil and gas and commercial drilling activity is
expected to commence shortly. The bank has tradi-
tionally been worked by fishermen from many 400 -90
nations. In the late 1950s large fleets of foreign
vessels began an onslaught on selected stocks that 3W -
radically changed the nature of Georges Bank fish-
eries. Domestic landings declined drastically, as @950 52 54 56 5a Go 62 64 66 M 12 1.
shown in Figure 1, as foreign fleets claimed a gYOWing Figure 1. New England Landings.

(D
THOUSANDS OF METRIC TONS PJ NUMBER OF FISHERMEN
an a N 8
0
0 8 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z
> 'o b
In. @l 8 00
co En 0 0
F ------------ T

00
.
CD W

>
cu

ri
00 d,
0

>
I N,
CD
w -Z-6r ct

N
En

tTl
00 0 (D I0- C@ t:r 0- >
"-c w
w N'o 0 0 @:r Vo '+ @3
0 CD THOUSANDS OF ME
Enz - P@ .0
CD W - (;; cl) C) CD CA EzAr
(70 'o' @:r CD -ot Cu n 0. rl
gU @5.
CD - CD 0
O@ 0 0 CD (D (o (P
m ri) @o g N)
a . 0
iw (D W CD 0 0 0 0
0 0 r+ 0 w 0 0 0
(D b - 0 a o @:r , w
En wt -'7' 0 " > cm En IW r=
@n P.7, 0 CD
0 (n (D CD C) (n
Z @0. " ". 5 (D r)* En
CD (D CD
o o om- o 'D
0 N
m CD co H`7:11711
CD aq M pi ( - @:3 5;
1+ (D CD -h rfl -n " @n (A m
(D (D < " P@ U, N --b - 0 o
r+ 0
t-
W CL (D U., c) o " w @:
@j " oJ -< (D CD
0 CD pj CL PJ -c Ln 2@ @g --
a, @j @l , m
;:r I @J CD
P. CD -
0
r- -
CD " 1+ C,
v D) 0 0 In. cn
Ln
2, W
CD gu CD o @3, r,777 "l
.q F ra glu
(n - CL (n - ::) CD
r+ 0 Di W CD CD C-10 (D 0
o CD CD gu 5
P;" -4
CD 00 cu w CD @n
En CD co W 0 N
-t gu e 'D Z IW w < n "
wn tn m m CD z
cu w
r
N >
"n
m m 0 0 @3' CD 7 7
0 In W CD W >
0 CD w a' CD
CD 0
PU W @:) ::@
0 Do 0 rL r-L go V -t n (D Z -< 0
uj O'Cl @:r - CD
Lq (D z
PU t:r CD N
CD 0 .0 Z @c CD CL 'rj 0 0 @o
PU M -,] C") N 9u CD En r-t
CL 0 o. M ::) w C;@* 0
in, w w CD
0 ID c --j (D (D
10 0 (D P: . (D
CD 2 124) lu
(D P7. (D Q., - . (A CA W :7v (D CD CD CD

opportunity for New England fishermen to claim a --- OTHER
larger share of the total catch. This means that we SOO.
must not compare a future offshore oil industry 250-
on Georges with the present domestic fishing
A
industry; the character of the latter may be very
different in ten or twenty years when offshore oil
activities may be in high gear. ISO- A
Our knowledge of the fish stocks on Georges
0
is sketchy and it is risky to make predictions for
what the bank could produce if fisheries were
properly managed. It can be hypothesized, however,
that the bank could produce a maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) of some 42Q,000 metric tons (924 million
pounds) of fin and shellfish each year. A very con- 4-
servative estimate, using 1974 dollars, is that the 3-
dockside value of this catch n-dght be $142 million 2 -
that would generate $420 million in transactions
in New England, of which $166 million would be 1957 *a 59 SO 62 63 64 65 66 67 6a 69 M 71 72 73 74
personal income. Let me emphasize that these Figure 6. Herring Landings, ICNAF Area 5Z (E and W).
numbers are a best guess.
Dr. Virgil Norton, a member of our study team,
made a series of projections for the expansion of 100-
New England fisheries under the 200-mile limit. so - us
OTHER
He concentrated on the groundfish (cod, haddock
ocean perch, and pollock) fishery. Three hypothetical 80
cases were examined. In Case 1, effective manage-
To-
ment, but no federal aid to fishermen, is postulated-,
Z
some federal aid is postulated, but foreign fishing
ZE 60-
continues in Case 2; and in Case 3 the industry
receives aid from the federal government and foreign
50-
fishing is eliminated (a truly hypothetical situation).
Estimated changes in the New England groundfish 40.
fishery may be summarized as follows:

30-

Employment
in Processing 20
Millions of Lbs. Vessels Fishermen Plants
Present 250-350 470 2500 1000 10
Case 1 500 545 3422 1500
Case 2 700 679 4620 2000
Case 3 750 712 4925 2800 1957 W 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 6a 69 70 71 72 73 74
Figure 7. Haddock Landings, ICNAF Area 5Z (E and VYJ.

Fisheries for herring and sea scallop could also The petroleum reserves on Georges may also be
experience dramatic growth and new fisheries may substantial. Unlike the fish, however, these resources
develop for such high-volume, low-value species as are nonrenewable. Present estimates for the magni-
mackerel and squid. The potential for growth in tude of these reserves, and very important whether
domestic fisheries for both traditionally favored and they are concentrated in a few large fields or are
new" species are illustrated by Figures 6, 7, and 8. scattered, are very definitely best guesses. There

us Now let us turn to some potential problems
OTHER
between fishing and petroleum exploitation. The
40-
first question is what the impacts of petroleum
exploitation might be on the fishery resources them-
selves. The amount of area that may be directly
affected by the placement of structures such as rigs
and pipelines is small and the loss of habitat does
A
not appear significant, with one important exception.
Some species, most notably herring, spawn in small,
20-
well-defined areas. Disruption of these habitats
should be avoided at all costs. The major potential
problem appears to be oil pollution. Although the
spill record for offshore drilling is good, it is
common knowledge that accidents, and big ones at
that, do happen. There is also concern for chronic
low-level pollution that need not be associated with
1W 56 53 60 GZ2 63 64 @5 16 61 68 69 ?U 11 72 73 7@ big spills. In attempting to assess the potential
Figure 8. Cod Landings, ICNAF Area 5Z (E and W). impact of- petroleum pollution on Georges one is
again struck by the meagerness of the information
may be no exploitable reserves at all, but the indi- with which we must work. Marine toxicology is a
cations are that a moderate-sized find (in global science in its infancy and most of the research
terms) will be discovered. The estimates for exploit- completed has been conducted under controlled
able reserves we used are: conditions in the laboratory. It will be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, in all but the most
Oil (billions ofbbls) Gas (Mllion cubicft) obvious catastrophic situations, to note a change
Large Find 0.18 1.3 in the environment, establish its cause, and assess
Small Find 1.3 8.6 its significance. On Georges Bank our ability to
accomplish these steps will be impaired by the lack of
The economic benefits that could accrue to the region baseline data, and the studies presently being under-
depend upon the size of individual fields and the taken will not provide the answers. These problems
price at which the product is sold. The greatest were discussed in detail at the Bentley College Work-
benefits to the region would result from a large shop'3 a convocation of recognized authorities
find of gas that would be sold at a low controlled on the Bank held in 1975. Why are we concerned
price. Depending on the size of the fields, we esti- with oil pollution? Because the soluble aromatic
mated that the consumer real income from single hydrocarbon derivatives (S.A.D.'s) in petroleum
hypothetical fields could range from $5-634 million products are toxic at very low concentrations. The
for gas sold at a controlled price of 60 cents per concentration of S.A.D.'s in crude oil varies and
thousand cubic feet (a best case) and $6-155 million may Teach 0. 1 to 10 percent. Lethal effects on adult
for individual hypothetical oil fields. Small and marine organisms are found at S.A.D. concentrations
large fields are defined as follows: of 0.1 to 10 ppm, and sublethal effects, including
production of abnormal spawn and inhibition of the
Oil (millions of bbls) Gas (Mllion cubic ft) mating response, occur at I to 10 ppb for some
Small Field 18.5 0.11 species of commercial and/or ecologic importance.
Large Field 321.8 1.93 Tainting can occur at concentrations of I ppb;
humans can taste concentrations in animal tissues
The nature of the available data unfortunately of 5 to 50 ppm. 4 All this leads to the conclusion
does not permit us to directly compare the possible that highly sensitive fish eggs and larvae would
future values to the region of fish and petroleum. probably be wiped out if they came in contact with

spilled oil. It should be pointed out that most eggs Estimates were then made of the amount of area
and larvae die anyway; but a spill at the wrong place that could be lost to fishermen by the placement
at the wrong time could have a major impact on a of drilling platforms. Given a minimum safety zone of
year class. Perhaps most worrysome of all is that 500 meters around each platform, and a greater loss
significant impacts may go unnoticed, or if they are in the vicinity of clustered platforms, we estimated
detected, that it will be very difficult indeed to that in a hypothetical worse case 50 platforms
establish their cause. grouped in small clusters could preempt 125 square
Let us now consider the problem of a loss of miles from fishing. If all this area was concentrated
fishing ground on the bank due to the placement of in the most productive fishing grounds some 2
offshore structures. The first point to be made is that percent of the total Georges Bank catch, in both
trawle-rmen - and most of the fish and shellfish pounds and dollars, might be lost. I will not go into
caught on the bank are taken with gear that is towed all the obvious problems with the data, but the con-
along the bottom - do not randomly drop down clusion that the loss appears relatively small seems to
their gear and pull it about anywhere. Fishermen be reasonable. We could not estimate losses from
work discrete grounds, and where the bottom is pipelines and this could be a more significant
scattered with obstructions, or fish are known to problem. The potential loss of ground from debris
concentrate in a specific place, the ground may be appears to be a greater problem than loss from struc-
very tightly defined. Fishermen are understandably tures; this will be discussed by Dr. Grigalunas.
jealous of their personal knowledge of the grounds Structures, at least, can be clearly marked and can
they fish and they do not readily tell others where the be positioned so that they will cause minimal inter-
best places are. Nevertheless we were able to work feTence with fishing. We strongly recommend, there-
with several fishermen who make their living on fore, that fishermen be consulted when the precise
Georges and map, in a somewhat generalized manner, placement of structures is being decided. A small shift
the various grounds. These maps have been widely could save a valuable fishing area.
circulated and fishermen feel they are accurate.
We then asked the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS)
Laboratory at Woods Hole to analyze their data on Notes
catch-by-aTea for landings at major New England 1. Olsen, Stephen and Saila, Saul B. Areas of Particular Interest
ports collected from 1965 through 1974. The manner to the Two Industries. Fishing and Petroleum Interactions On
in which this data was collected poses many im- Georges Bank, vol 1. Energy Program Tech. Report 16-3.
portant problems, but the file is the only source of Boston: The New England Regional Commission, 1976.
numbers for catch by specie for small areas (squares 2. Olsen and Saila. The Characteristics of the Two Industries.
Potential Future Trends and An Assessment of Foreseeable
measuring 10 minutes of latitude by 10 minutes Conflicts. Fishing and Petroleum Interactions On Georges
of longitude). One obvious problem with the data is Bank, vol. 11. Energy Program Tech. Report 77-1. Boston:
that the catch for an entire fishing trip was usually The New England Regional Commission, 1977.
assigned to a single square, and never to more than 3. Bentley College Workshop. Georges Bank Conference; Marine
Environmental Assessment Needs on the Georges Bank
three squares. It is very unusual for a vessel to take Related to Petroleum EXPIOTation and Development New
all its catch from one small area. However, we worked England Natural Resource Center, 1975.
the data hard and defined "grounds" which agree 4. Hyland, J. L. and Schneider, E. D. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and
fairly well with the areas defined as grounds by the Their Effects on Marine Organisms, Populations, Communities
fishermen. A careful analysis was made of data for and Ecosystems, Proceedings of Symposium on Sources,
Effects, and Sinks of Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Environ-
1965, 1969, and 1974, and it was found that the ment. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological
most productive grounds, as defined by the NMFS Sciences. August 9-11, 1976.
data, produced an average of $29,585 and 164,410
pounds per year per lease tract (approximately
5,700 acres). Information collected from fishermen
strongly suggests, however, that the per area value
in some locations is much higher than these figures
suggest,

Part Two. Three Potential Aspects of Conflict: Debris on the Sea-
floor, Competition for Labor, Competition for Port and Service
Facilities

Thomas Grigalunas

Associate Professor, Department of Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island

Debris and Bottom Obstructions* dwarfed by the prospective major returns from off-
If North Sea drilling is any guide, debris on the shore oil and gas developments (see above). Nonethe-
ocean floor that can foul fishing gear is expected to less, conflicts in this area are certain to be highly
be one of the more noticeable day-to-day conflicts visible; and unless pragmatic remedies are adopted,
between the petroleum and fishing industries. Scot- relations between the two industries can be aggra-
tish fishermen's representatives have stressed that vated, which in turn can affect the leasing of off-
,,. . . debris is possibly the most serious factor shore tracts and the potential to realize gains from
affecting fishing operations . the expansion of both industries. Some present and
For perspective, over the period from May 1974 possible remedies are outlined below.
through June 1976, some 121 claims were filed for O.C.S. orders provide that the disposal of wastes
$123,000 against the United Kingdom Offshore into the ocean shall not adversely affect uses of the
Operators Association for damages resulting from oil- ocean. O.C.S. orders also require that offshore opera-
related debri S.2 These figures do not include 28 tions clear permanently (though not temporarily)
claims filed directly against oil companies, and the abandoned well sites of obstructions. The existence
value of these direct claims is not available. Also of regulations, of course, does not insure that prob-
the statistics are somewhat understated because lems will not arise. The United Kingdom has its
claims f or the value of lost fishing have been recorded Dumping at Sea Act of 197 4, and yet there is difficulty
only since late 1976. with debris in the North Sea. The fact is that effective
The cost of new fishing gear (trawl net, doors, enforcement of regulations is costly, so that deliber-
and warps) for representative trawlers of the type ate as well as accidental discharge of materials into
that fish for groundfish on Georges Bank could range the ocean is likely to occur.
from $7,300 to $9,700, although seldom is all the gear It may, of course, be possible to induce accident
likely to be lost. in addition, the estimated net loss prevention by some straightforward approaches. For
in income (revenue less operating costs) to the vessel example, someone other than the supply boat crew
owner and crew could amount to $1,333 for each day could offload waste materials being brought ashore,
of lost fishing time. so that a crew would not have an incentive to dump
The potential economic costs resulting from oil- at sea in order to have more fre@ time on shore.
related debris and bottom bbstruction in total are Educational efforts also may be used to inform oil

'This section is based on Sutinen (CRC, 1977, Section 9).

industry employees of the characteristics of offshore are too strict, some legitimate claims may not be
fishing operations and the potential harm that can be paid, thus negating the purpose of the fund.
caused by dumping materials offshore.
If damages to commercial fishermen resulting Competition for Labor
from debris and bottom obstructions do occur, direct introduction of offshore oil in the North Sea
approaches for compensation are not likely to be a has attracted workers from alternative occupations,
very useful general approach for compensation. First including commercial fishing. However, offshore oil
and foremost, it is necessary to know the identity in the North Sea coincided with a period of decline
of the alleged offending party, and often this will in fisheries. In New England the situation is the
not be possible. Even if the identity is known, how- reverse; we expect to have both industries expanding
ever, litigation very often will be too costly to pursue. simultaneously. At issue is whether or not the intro-
Also, direct but informal negotiations between the duction of petroleum development on Georges Bank
parties can be costly (particularly in the opportunity could somehow dominate labor markets and slow the
cost of time for the owner-operator of a vessel), expansion in fishing.
and in this case, the decision as to whether and how in order to assess the likely labor market inter-
much to compensate is left to the oil company, the actions between the two industries, estimates were
presumed offending party. made of the quantity and type of added demands
One remedy proposed for dealing with the prob- for labor by fishing, petroleum, and related industries.
lem of identification of the offending party is to The extent of overlap in the demand for skills was
require that major pieces of material and equipment identified, and the likely impact of market compe-
going offshore be conspicuously marked. However, tition for the commonly demanded pool of labor
such a scheme could prove to be costly. then was elevated.
Because the direct approaches described above The peak demand for labor to work offshore in
often will not prove useful, there is considerable the high oil and natural gas find case was ' estimated
merit in the indirect approach of a compensation to be about 4,000. New England's share of this work-
fund that could cover damages from oil- related debris force is estimated to be about 2, 100 at peak. About
that cannot be attributed to a particular company. 1,200 jobs, at peak, would require skills similar to
Such a system, funded by oil operators, is functioning those found in commercial fishing, e.g., captains,
in Scotland. mates, crews, mechanics, and radio operators.
Under the compensation fund system, commer- in the high commercial fishing case, the com-
cial fishermen would be able to seek recompense bined added demand for labor for expanding harvest-
against the fund for damages to gear as well as ing operations, to replace retiring crewmen and to
the net income loss resulting from lost fishing time. provide management observers to enforce fishery
The value of lost fishing time might, for example, regulations, could amount to 5,400 to 6,200 workers.
be estimated by using the average productivity of the in sum the expansion of both industries by the
vessel over its last, say, three trips in order to mid- 1980s will create a demand on the region's labor
account for the 'productivity of individual skippers. force for some 6,600 to 7,400 additional workers
It is clear that, in setting up a compensation with similar skills. This increase in demand for
scheme, the organization, funding level, and pro- workers is not likely to have a notable impact on
cedures and standards to be followed are central to commercial fishing for several reasons. First, the
the success of this approach. The characteristics of increase will occur over a period of years, and a
the compensation fund financed voluntarily by the gradual increase in both industries would be expected
United Kingdom Off shore Operators Association, to lead to fewer dislocations than an equivalent
which could be a useful model for Georges Bank, increase over a short period of time. Moreover, fish-
are described in some detail in our report 3 in general, ermen's earnings compare favorably with expected
while it is hoped that such a system would expedite earnings in similar job categories in the offshore
claims, the fund would have to be protected from petroleum industry (although there probably is less
false claims. On the other hand, if claims procedures risk in the oil industry than in the fishing industry).

Potential transfers from the fishing industry to the vessels will be used in continuous support of Georges
oil industry also would be hampered because fisher- Bank oil and gas development in the high find case.
men may not possess the seamen papers necessary In the most optimistic commercial fishing case,
for many positions on oil-related vessels. Finally, perhaps 240 additional fishing vessels will be added
there appears to be ample availability in other sectors, to the groundfish fishing fleet, an increase of about
especially construction, of the skills and aptitudes 50 percent over the 1976 groundfish fleet of vessels
required in offshore petroleUM.4 over 38' long.*
On the other hand, a note of caution is called In total, the ports in the region would need to
for. Recent high rates of unemployment may continue accommodate about 300 additional vessels, and these
to decline, and we cannot be sure'precisely what vessels will tend to be larger than many of the
labor pool will be drawn upon to accommodate the boats currently using many ports. Supply boats will
demand for the skills, training, and characteristics be in the 175-225 foot range and draw 15 feet when
used by the two industries and related (e.g., vessel loaded. The size of the "average" groundfish vessel
repair yards) businesses. Therefore, industries and is expected to increase, with most of the additional
government will need to work together to fishing vessels expected to be in the over 70-foot
initiate training programs to avoid potential category.
bottlenecks. Perhaps 700 acres would be demanded for direct
offshore oil support operations, excluding a possible
Competition for Port and Service FacHities platform fabrication facility or petroleum refinery.
O.C.S. oil and natural gas development and An expanded fishing industry also may create de-
additional commercial fishing will lead to an increase mands for additional port lands.
in the demand for port services, including berthing On the supply side, an inventory was made of
and the use of nearby port lands for support activities the principal features and facilities available at ports
and vessel repair facilities. Will the additional activity in the region. Substantial underutilized or idle
of both industries create congestion problems in facilities exist at many major ports in the region and
ports? is it likely that O.C.S. petroleum operations at excessed Navy lands, including Boston and New
will displace commercial fishing in New England Bedford in Massachusetts and Quonset- Davisville,
ports? Melville, and Coddington Cove in Rhode island.
It is difficult to assess potential conflicts 0 .n a general level it is difficult to see how off-
between the two industries on a general level. Man- shore oil and gas development on the scale envisaged
agement decisions are port and state specific, and here need result in any notable competition for
the kinds and scale of development that will be berthing and use of port lands, especially in view
encouraged depend importantly on decisions made of present plans to use the massive facilities at
by those responsible for port management Also, PO- Quonset Point to support offshore oil and gas opera-
tential demands for port services will arise from recre- tions. The only qualification necessary is that a
ational boating, tourism, and other activities, and the number of smaller ports in the region - e.g., Newport
scope of our work was restricted to potential offshore and the harbors on Cape Cod - are heavily utilized
petroleum and commercial fishing developments- during the summer and conflicts exist between
Nonetheless, useful insight into potential compe- fishing vessels and pleasure craft at present rates
tition between the two industries can be gained by of use. If petroleum-related activities were placed in
reviewing possible additional demands by the indus- many of these smaller ports, displacement of com-
tries and the present utilization of ports in the region. mercial fishing and other uses could take place.
First we look briefly at the demand side. The
hypothetical high offshore petroleum and com-
mercial fishing development cases are used since 'it is emphasized that these figures include groundfish fishing vessels
the potential for conflict,. if any, would be most only because these are the fisheries most likely to feel the major
impact of extended jurisdiction, in terms of increase in vessels, over the
evident in these cases. next, say, ten years. No attempt is made to estimate potential increases
The results of our study suggests that some 60 in the number of vessels to harvest scallops, herring or other species.

In a related vein the introduction of offshore 2. Assistant secretary, Scottish Fishermen's Federation, personal
oil and gas development and extended jurisdiction communication, Nov. 1976,
will generate additional demands for a variety of 3. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Fishing
and Petroleum Interactions on Georges Bank (Boston: New
vessel repair and maintenance services. Demands by England Regional Commission, May 1977), pp. 280-286.
oil-related vessels for repair work are likely to be 4. Ibid., p. 298.
insensitive to price because these vessels are on
call twenty-four hours a day. Speed of services at a
repair yard thus is a major consideration by operators
of supply boats. Should congestion problems arise
and cause lost operating or fishing time, costs could
be imposed on oil companies or fishing vessel owners
and crews.
The combination of additional demands (ex-
penditures) for vessel-related repair and maintenance
work by offshore oil support vessels and commercial
fishing boats could be comparable to the annual
output of about seven moderate- to- large commercial
boatyards. As part of our survey of port facilities
during the summer and fall of 1975 it was found that
many of the large shipyards in the region have been
operating substantially below capacity. Many of the
larger boatyards had excess capacity during the off-
peak seasons. In addition, most yards have informal
arrangements to work on emergency jobs first, which
serves to reduce potential congestion costs during
peak periods. In view of the above, general con-
gestion problems aye not likely to arise, and increased
demands should serve primarily to decrease the
underutilization and off-season excess capacity
at -repair yards.
Managers of vessel repair yards were asked what
problems, if any, might be encountered should they
have an incentive to expand their facilities to accom-
modate additional, larger vessels. The major non-
market factors mentioned, that could hamper or
prevent yards from expanding, were lack of adjoining
land (seven yards out of sixteen responding), and the
inability to extend facilities further into the harbor
(six yards). The need to dredge and obtain environ-
mental permits (five yards) and the physical limita-
tions in the harbor (five yards) also were given as
constraints on handling either more or larger vessels.

Notes

1. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, "Effects
of Oil and Gas Development on Fishing" (Edinburgh:
- October, 1975), mimeographed.

Deepwater Ports and the Marine Environment
An Issue for the Gulf Coast

Shepard R Perrin, Jr.

Executive Director, Louisiana Offshore Terminal Authority

Public planning is often characterized as involv- from the cooperative approach. (No serious "use
ing trade-offs between economic and environmental conflicts" have arisen to date.) The Louisiana deep-
values. Cast in this light, the planning process often water port is an offshore oil importation terminal
causes interested parties to align themselves with one to unload foreign petroleum from very large crude
side or the other, and eventually degenerates into carriers (VLCCs). The port is planned as a monobuoy
firm opposition, with each side unwilling to com- facility in the Gulf of Mexico, 18 miles off the
promise. We have all seen this happen, and, I believe, Louisiana coastline, connected to underground salt
can agree that such a scenario is not a healthy dome storage facilities in the coastal zone and to
atmosphere for intelligent decision- making. inland refineries by 95 miles of large-diameteT
We have also seen the other extreme to this buried pipelines. The port will be owned, constructed,
approach to public planning in which decision- and operated by the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, Inc.,
makers base their decisions on the interests of a LOOP, a consortium of six oil companies. Construc-
small group, usually including themselves, and tion is expected to begin by the end of this year,
studiously avoid and frustrate broader public input. with operations commencing in 1980. The Offshore
Neither approach is desirable. Although good Terminal Authority is the state agency which licenses
decisions, can come from either process, they dont LOOP and monitors its activities.
usually arise because of any positive contribution of The deepwater port is not a "controversial"
the planning process. in the past, the second ap- project in Louisiana. Louisiana has had fisheries and
proach had the appeal of expediency. However, court offshore oil production existing side by side for
decisions blocking major projects solely because of many years, and realizes that with proper safeguards,
the expediency of that approach have detracted one need not interfere with the other. (The same
severely from this process. holds true for oil wells in the highly productive
Hopefully, the problems of both types of plan- wetlands.) Many individuals work in both industries
ning have had enough publicity to create an atmos- in the course of a year. Louisiana also understands
phere which will encourage a more effective ap- the need in this country for importing foreign petro-
proach to public planning - the cooperative leum. Finally, Louisiana recognizes that a deepwater
approach. As used here, cooperation is not intended port for supertankers, properly constructed and
to imply collusion or absence of conflict. It does operated, is better economically and environmentally
mean that all interested parties have a comprehen- than the alternative of continuing with increasing
sion of and respect for all facets of the question. numbers of small tankers entering our ports.
Possibly, individuals would even begin to realize Petroleum importation is a fact of life in this
their commonality of interests. Such a realization country. The U.S. is now importing one-half of its
is the key to a true cooperative approach. total petroleum needs, and almost every projection
I would like to describe a project, and the public shows this dependence on foreign oil increasing
planning process surrounding it, which has benefited for at least the next several decades.

Louisiana is a major importation point for increased quantities of foreign oil must be imported
foreign oil needed not only by our own refineries, to keep its petroleum- refining and petrochemical
but also by refineries in the midwestern United industries operating. The state's own petroleum
States. This oil is now transported up the Mississippi resources were diminishing and new discoveries
River in small tankers which have received their oil were not making up the losses. The state was also
from transshipment terminals in the Caribbean or aware of the advantages of VLCCs and superports
from VLCCs in the Gulf of Mexico. These small in the efficient and safe transportation of these
tankers deliver their cargoes directly to refinery needed imports and in the preservation and growth
docks in Louisiana and to pipeline terminal facilities of the state's economy.
for shipment to the Midwest. Without a deepwater port, Louisiana's refineries
The use of VLCCs for long-haul foreign petro- would increasingly import petroleum by small tanker
leum (such as from the Middle East or Africa) can via the Mississippi River, with the attendant increased
save more than 30 percent in transportation costs risks and costs, to keep existing refineries running.
over such transshipment or lightering operations. Because of large capital costs, once a refinery is
VLCCs are generally safer than small tankers, since built and tied into a product distribution system,
they are usually newer, well-equipped with naviga- it is generally more economical to keep it running
tional aids, and manned with highly qualified per- than to shut it down, even if the cost of supplying
sonnel. There are some inherent disadvantages to feedstock increases. But, in the face of a decidedly
VLCCs, such as their being less maneuverable uneconomical supply system, industry would
because of their large size, that make them less probably allow process units to wear out without
desirable in situations like confined harbors or replacement, and would tend to look elsewhere to
inland waters. Their deep draft as much as 90 feet, locate expansions and new grass-root plants. This
makes it impossible for them to approach the major would have a severe "ripple- effect' ' on the Louisiana
U.S. eastern and southern coast ports without ex- economy, since a decline in refining would mean
tensive channel dredging. In some cases, such as the a decline in availability of energy supplies and,
mouth of the Mississippi River, which has main- perhaps more importantly, certain petrochemical
tained depth of 40 feet, it is considered technically feedstocks. Conversely, with an efficient means of
infeasible to create and maintain a channel deep petroleum supply, the state of Louisiana, because
enough for VLCCs, because of the large volume of of the existing industrial and transportation infra-
silt constantly being deposited. structure, is an extremely attractive location for
Offshore deepwater ports solve these problems, new refining and petrochemical capacity.
and others, by placing the port in natural deep water; It should also be mentioned that, prior to 1972,
the need for environmentally disruptive dredging there had been considerable discussion of a deep-
is eliminated, and the big ships remain in deep, water port off the coast of Texas. It is probably
open water where there is little risk of collision reasonable to assume that the normal competitive
and no chance of grounding. In addition, a deep- feelings between the two states might have had some'
water port is a single, sophisticated importation influence on Louisiana's interest in a similar
system, where navigation, mooring, and unloading facility. (Seadock is the Texas project.)
can be closely controlled and where * emergency Early in 1972, recognition of these various
response equipment can be made readily available. factors caused the then Governor-elect Edwin
Further, use of a deepwater port drastically reduces Edwards to form the Louisiana Superport Task
the need for small tankers to transport oil upriver Force, a blue ribbon commission of forty-six indi-
or to "lighter" from VLCCs in the Gulf, both of viduals representing such diverse interests as ship-
which are relatively more hazardous. Two-thirds of ping, manufacturing, labor, government, and envir-
all accidental oil spillage from tankers is the result onmental groups. The task force was charged with
of collisions or groundings, which are more prevalent three major goals: funding through private sources
in confined waters. of preliminary legal, environmental, engineering,
In 1972, the state of Louisiana recognized. that and economic studies of a deepwater port and its

impacts; beginning a public information program to on handling certain types of cargo at the deepwater
apprise the public of the need for a deepwater port; port without the consent of the other ports.
and drafting legislation, to be presented to the 1972 With the creation of the Offshore Terminal
session of the Louisiana Legislature, which would Authority as a functioning state agency, the ad hoc
create a state agency to deal with deepwater port task force was dissolved. The Authority began its
development program of promoting, planning, developing and
The studies revealed much significant informa- regulating a deepwater port.
tion, and raised many new questions for subsequent The first priority of the Offshore Terminal
study. This research presented a realistic picture Authority was to introduce the citizens of Louisiana
of what a Louisiana deepwater port and its associated to the concept of offshore ports. It was vital to inform
facilities would be like and what effects it would and to assure the public that the state could benefit
have on the state's environment, economy, people, greatly from a deepwater port without sacrificing
and government. Equipped with this picture, mem- its environmental integrity or jeopardizing its
bers of the Sea Grant Legal Program at Louisiana financial position.
State University were-able to prepare a set of recom- Initial efforts to build deepwater ports off the
mendations on how to proceed with legal aspects of coasts of Delaware, New York, and Maine all had met
the project solid public opposition, largely because the people
The recommendations of the legal researchers of those areas felt - rightly or mistakenly - that
were divided into four categories: state, federal, the risks to the environment were too great. The
international, and environmental. Essentially, the developers of those proposed projects did not make
recommendations supplied the data needed for the an adequate effort to communicate the concept of
draft legislation establishing the Louisiana Deep and need for offshore ports; nor did they pay adequate
Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority, now called the attention to the li@gitimate concerns of environ-
Offshore Terminal Authority. mentalists.
This legislation was an important phase of On the other hand, the Louisiana Offshore
deepwater port development It not only set up a Terminal Authority worked hard at establishing two-
first- of- its- kind state agency, but also spelled out way communications with every possible part of the
in detail the criteria which would allow construction populace of the state. A public information program
of an offshore port without allowing uncontrolled, was, and is, an integral part of the Authority's
unsound consequences. development plan. The people of Louisiana had to
The enacted state legislation defined the Off- know about the project and its implications.
shore Terminal Authority's jurisdiction as "function- Environmentalists were eager to know what was
al" rather than "geographic." This was important, being planned near one of the most biologically
given the fact that a deepwater port, because of the productive wetland areas of the world. The Authority
water depth required, was not likely to be built was just as anxious to establish communication
inside the state's traditional jurisdictional limit with the environmentalists, because their input
of three miles from shore. The Authority was given was certain to contribute heavily to the environ-
exclusive powers which enable it to do everything mental protection plan.
necessary for developing and regulating an offshore Looking years ahead, the Authority began estab-
port The legislative act also placed a binding proviso lishing information channels with other state and
on those powers. Before any development program federal agencies, because a project of the magnitude
can begin, a comprehensive environmental protec- of a deepwater port ultimately reaches many agencies
tion plan must be formulated and it must be fol- and affects planning for the state.
lowed in all respects throughout the life of the In a word, planning is one of the Authority's
Authority. biggest responsibilities. The Authority has encoun-
In addition, the act creating the Offshore tered unique situations at each juncture, because no
Terminal Authority provided for the protection of other agency in the U.S. had ever held the responsi-
existing Louisiana ports, including prohibitions bility of developing, a deepwater port. The Authority

39,

predated the federal offices set up to work with comirdssioning an ecological study by the Louisiana
superports. State University Center for Wetland Resources.
The Authority's board began by organizing a Using the results of this study as a base and
staff. It was realized that the nature of the Authority's incorporating additional data obtained from studies
work would be varied and constantly changing as performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
deepwater port development advanced. It was neces- U.S. Department of the Interior and from three public
sary to have ready access to a diversity of talent, environmental workshops, the environmental plan
although much of that talent would only be needed was formulated by the director of the Authority and
on a temporary basis. The board decided that a two prominent experts (from the Louisiana Wildlife
large staff would create an inefficient and inflexible and Fisheries Department and from the LSU Wetlands
bureaucracy, and so chose a small, versatile staff Center) as required in the statute creating the
and relied on consultants for Work in such special- Authority.
ized areas as law, public relations, and engineering. The Environmental Protection Plan summarizes
To form a basis for developing concrete plans potential stresses and lists the specific criteria to
for deepwater port developments, the Authority be considered in the development program. This
commissioned studies in economics, environment enumeration is made in the statute also. Briefly
engineering, and legal jurisdiction. these criteria are:
A socio-economic impact study conducted on 1. Site selection factors, including environ-
behalf of the S uperport Task Force, and subsequently mental vis-a-vis economic ones. This section adopted
updated and expanded by consultants to the Author- the policy of the Louisiana Advisory Commission on
ity, showed conclusively that a deepwater port would Coastal and Marine Resources, and lists maximizing
have a major and favorable impact on the economy the use of existing development and navigation
of Louisiana. As previously mentioned, the existence corridors, avoiding existing oil and gas production
of an efficient, low-cost method of importing foreign platforms, avoiding manmade sea-bottom installa-
petroleum into Louisiana will mean revitalization tions and natural spawning sites, and minimizing
and growth of the state's refining and petrochemical disturbance of coastal wetlands areas.
industries. Without such a system, these industries 2. Design requirements, including statements
would stagnate and eventually decline. The differ- on how proposed designs minimize potential
ence between these two scenarios is what we mean environmental dangers. Of particular interest is the
by the economic impact of the deepwater port The portion of this section which controls long-term
latest studies project that the deepwater port, in development so that growth and additions to the
its first year of operation, 1980, will be'responsible port do not result in random expansion or gradual
for about 16,000 new jobs in refining, petrochemical, environmental deterioration. As a preliminary deter-
and related industries, with new investment in these mination, the plan favors a monobuoy-type system
industries amounting to some $2.3 billion. These for handling crude oil. To ensure the Authority's
benefits are expected to increase in later years, with means of controlling secondary development, pro-
projections showing over 30,000 new jobs and visions of the plan limit and control "tie-ins" to the
approximately $5.6 billion in new investment gener- pipeline system in wetland areas,
ated by the deepwater port by the year 1990. By 3. Descriptions of operation procedures which
the way, the studies also show that, based on regu- minimize environmental problems, and provisions
latory standards being enforced, our air and water for enforcement of environmental regulations. This
will be cleaner in 1990 than they are today, despite section sets forth construction and operational guide-
the expected expansion of industry. This is because lines to minimize disruption of the coastal area. It
new industry will be required to be extremely clean, also provides for a monitoring system to be con-
and existing industry will be required to sub- ducted by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
stantially reduce pollutant discharge levels. and Fisheries. The enforcement provisions include
The process of developing the Environmental measures for cleanup of accidental spills with evi-
ProtectionPlan required by state law was begun by dence of financial responsibility to ensure perform-

ance, and methods for extracting environmental 2. Creates a single window licensing procedure
compensation from owners and operators judged under the secretary of transportation, and mandates
responsible for damages. To avoid unsound environ- a maximum of 356 days for the processing of a
mental practices, owners or operators of any facility license application.
under the Authority's jurisdiction are required to 3. Establishes liability for oil-spill cleanup
submit operational and contingency plans for costs and damages, places liability limits on vessels
approval. and deepwate'r ports, and establishes a fund to pay
4. Procedures for funding projects to com- cleanup costs and damages not otherwise com-
pensate the coastal environment for losses resulting pensated. (This part of the act is likely to be replaced
from deepwater port development In simple terms, by similar language contained in uniform oil spill
the Authority can impose compensatory charges on liability legislation presently under consideration
those who cause damage to the environment or in Congress.)
who violate environmental regulations. The money 4. Makes a deepwater port and its facilities a
from these charges would be paid into a fund which common carrier, providing nondiscriminatory use of
would be used to clean up oil spills and other pollu- nonowners.
tion and to pay the costs of restoring the environ- The development of federal regulations to imple-
ment when damage has occurred. Money from the ment the Deepwater Port Act required almost one
fund could also be used to pay for environmental year of study, public hearings, and comments. The
research projects or monitoring programs. licensing process was defined and guidelines for
5. A framework for coordinating Authority activ- preparation of application documents were devel-
ities with those of other governmental agencies. oped. Criteria and regulations for design, operations,
Following promulgation of the Environmental and environmental impact were promulgated. In late
Protection Plan, the next major activity of the Author- 1975, the U.S. Department of Transportation was
ity was participation in the drafting of federal legisla- ready to receive license applications for deepwater
tion and subsequent federal regulations. Because of ports.
the need to locate deepwater ports beyond the terri- In the state of Louisiana, a private corporation
torial limits of the U.S., to utilize naturally deep had previously announced its interest in developing
water, because of the jurisdictional uncertainties a deepwater port Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, Inc.,
which arise in such locations, and because of the now known as LOOP, is a consortium of six oil
large number of federal agencies with potential companies which have refining operations in
interest in deepwater ports, federal legislation was Louisiana and in the Midwest Because of LOOP's
necessary to assure sound development of offshore financial and technical capability of properly con-
ports. structing and operating the deepwater port and
The Deepwater Port Act of 1974 was introduced because of LOOP's willingness to comply with the
by Louisiana Congressman John Breaux, passed by state's Environmental Protection Plan and other
the Congress in December 1974, and signed into law requirements the Offshore Terminal Authority deter-
by President Ford in January 1975. The Deepwater mined that the best interests of the state would
Port Act accomplishes the following: be served by allowing private enterprise to construct
1. Places prime jurisdiction over deepwater and operate the deepwater port.
ports constructed beyond the territorial limit in the The Authority concentrated its efforts on its
hands of the federal government, but with express , present major activities - licensing and regulation.
recognition of the rights and responsibilities of The state licensing process paralleled and interfaced
states. States arelgiven preferential right to develop with the federal licensing process. The Authority
deepwater ports off their coasts, may veto or place was responsible for licensing and regulating those
conditions on privately developed deepwater ports, parts of the deepwater port and related onshore
and can assess fees as compensation for economic, facilities within the state jurisdiction. The Authority
environmental, and administrative costs attributable was also responsible for advising the governor when
to deepwater port development. his approval of the federal license was required.

Because of this two-fold responsibility, and because the Authority during construction and operation
the geographical demarcation between state and will be to:
federal jurisdiction over the deepwater port is not 1. Review and approve detailed design and
clearcut, the Authority reviewed all aspects of the operational and contingency plans.
project, both onshore and offshore. 2. Inspect and oversee construction and opera-
Both federal and state licensing processes tion for conformity with regulatory requirements.
required approximately one year, beginning with the 3. Administer the environmental protection
submission of LOOP's license applications in plan and other regulatory requirements, particularly
December 1975. Detailed reviews were made on both an environmental monitoring program, cleanup and
state and federal levels of technical design, environ- compensatory programs (if needed), and admini-
mental and economic impact, operational and con- strative cost reimbursement.
tingency procedures, legal ramifications, and The environmental monitoring program is
regulatory compliance. Numerous federal, state, and worthy of specific mention. This program is not
local agencies in either the state or the federal only a requirement of the state's license and environ-
licensing process, or both, were involved in the mental pr6itection plan, but has also been incor-.
review of LOOP's plans. The Authority conducted porated as a requirement of the federal license
detailed institutional studies and surveys to identify and other federal permits. The monitoring program
state and local agencies with an interest in the deep- is a comprehensive program covering all of LOOP's
water port, provided each with copies of LOOP's facilities and operations, and is intended to detect
application doc 'uments, and incorporated their com- environmental impact from the deepwater port and
ments into the state review. Public participation in related onshore facilities. The program must be in
the board of commissioners' meeting was actively operation months before construction begins. The
encouraged. cost of monitoring will be borne by LOOP, as will
The federal licensing process also included the all state regulatory costs under provisions of the
preparation of an environmental impact statement, Deepwater Port Act. The monitoring program was
the holding of public hearings in Louisiana and developed by the same group which developed the
Washington, and an extensive antitrust review. environmental protection plan, and will be conducted
Numerous meetings between LOOP and federal and by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fish-
state officials resulted in several project changes eries at an annual cost of approximately $300,000.
to ameliorate the expected impact. I Data from the program will be used to determine
Federal and state licenses were issued to LOOP whether significant adverse impact has resulted
in January 1977. These licenses contain stringent from construction or operation, and to plan needed
requirements regarding environmental protection, ameliorative action and compensatory programs.
financial responsibility, liability for oil spills, non- I have described a very active program of govern-
discriminatory usage, and indemnification of the mental planning and regulation aimed at most effec-
issuing authority. Since final details of design, tively developing a deepwatey port off the Louisiana
operation, and contingency procedures are yet to be coast. The approach taken by the Offshore Terminal
developed, the licenses require approval of these Authority has been one of genuine cooperation and
details before construction and operation can begin. meaningful consideration of the interests of all
LOOP is required by the federal license to hold concerned parties. In dealings with LOOP and other
ownership open for six months after issuance of the private industry, with all levels of government, with
license, and must decide whether to proceed with public interest groups and with individual citizens,
the project'within two weeks after that period, or by the Authority has attempted to create trust in its
August 1, 1977. Seadock is under the same federal integrity and reasonableness and has attempted to
time constraint. keep that trust by actively seeking out points of
It is expected that LOOP will decide to proceed view and fairly incorporating legitimate concerns
on August 1, and will be able to start construction in its policies and programs. In addition to reflecting
by the end of 1977. The future regulatory role of the interests of its constituency, the Authority has

provided leadership and coordination in deepwater
port development.
I said earlier that the deepwater port was not a
controversial project in Louisiana. The people of the
state believe the port is being properly handled and
will benefit them economically and environmentally.
By taking an open and cooperative approach to
public planning, the Offshore Tern-dnal Authority
has helped both to create this favorable impression
and to assure Louisianians that the reality lives
up to the impression.

A Case Study of Marine Recreation Conflicts in
Southern California

Susan H. Anderson

Marine Recreation Specialist, Institute for Marine and Coastal Studies, University of
Southern California

The seemingly vast coastline of California is Because boating is "equipment intensive," land
a finite resource with increasing demands for its space is needed for storage, if boat ramps are used
use. Although there are 300 miles of island coast- for access. Fishermen may need boat access or may
line in addition to 1072 miles of shoreline, less find rocky coasts or piers and jetties suitable for
than 25 percent of this is available for public their use. Surfers and swimmers need sandy beaches
recreation. with different nearshore bottom configurations to
The Southern California coast faces particularly provide good surf or no surf. Scuba divers seek areas
heavy pressures. Los Angeles and Orange Counties with considerable bottom life, often off rocky shore-
have a population density of over 500 people per lines and bluff areas where shore access is very diffi-
square mile. This has contributed to heavy air pollu- cult.
tion which is trapped by the mountain ranges to Owners of private coastal property and prop-
the east and north of the Los Angeles Basin. To erties within closed gate communities frequently
get away from the smog and to benefit from the make exclusive recreational use of their coastal
cooler air temperatures nearer the ocean, many frontage. Coastal 'hotels, restaurants, and shopping
people have sought homes in the nearby coastal promenades in harbors provide commercial recrea-
area. tional opportunities. Public, free access is often
The coastal area is also a focus of commerce restricted by these private, commercial, and special
and industry. The Los Angeles and Long Beach interests.
Harbors are major ports for oil importation and In Southern California, we can perhaps under-
general cargo-shipping and support facilities. Power stand the conflicts better if we review the number
plants, sewage treatment facilities, and airports of people and the number of coastal recreation
are located on the coast to take advantage of the user-days. Here there are over I million boaters
ocean environment. actively pursuing this sport on 27 million occasions
With over I I million people in Los Angeles and per year. There were an estimated 9,165,000 angler
Orange Counties and year-round good weather, the days in Southern California in 1975 and 2 million
coast is extremely popular for recreation. While the dive occasions. in that same year, Los Angeles and
weather changes sufficiently to vary the numbers of Orange Counties together calculated 167 million
coastal users throughout the year, even in the cooler beach-use days. In all of Southern California there
weather the coast has considerable appeal. were an estimated 225 million sightseeing days,
Even among recreational users there are varying including such activities as photography, painting,
pressures for use. Each kind of user - the boater, exploring, and study.
fisherman, surfer, swimmer, scuba diver, sunbather, This heavy demand results in traffic and parking
photographer - requires, different facilities and ter- congestion. Southern Californians rely heavily on
rain. Boaters need harbors and marinas or boat ramps. private automobiles for access to ffie beach. There

are photographs as early as 1930 that show bumper- deafening roar of a departing jet. Just south of the
to-bumper traffic en route to Newport Beach on a airport are a sewage treatment facility and a power
Sunday afternoon - evidence even then of the plant that further detract from the environment
regional demand placed on beach cities. of this beach.
Although many parking lots have been built For many years the Los Angeles'Harbor Depart-
near public beaches to accommodate beach visitors, ment issued only month-to-month leases to marinas
there are a number of public beaches adjacent to in order to leave maximum opportunity for new
densely populated residential areas that are with- commercial shipping facilities. The result has been
out adequate parking facilities. On-street parking a miserable collection of marinas, with minimum
by beach visitors frequently conflicts with residential facilities, cheaply constructed, because of constant
parking requirements. concern that their leases- would not be renewed.
Few public transit lines are available to alleviate Finally in 1976, the Harbor Department altered
the parking dilemma, but there are some notable its policy and issued some twenty-year leases for
exceptions. Orange County Rapid Transit District marinas that are in the Cerritos Channel area- of
does have a line that delivers many people to the the harbor.
beaches on the Balboa Peninsula in Newport Beach. There is especially intense pressure on the Los
In Laguna Reach a shuttle bus runs between cars Angeles---Long Beach harbor area for major expansion
parked several miles from the beach and the shore- of recreational boating facilities, since the, recent
front shop's and beach boardwalk However, lack of coastal legislation almost entirely restricts new
support for a similar shuttle bus run by a private boating facilities to existing developed harbors. One
entrepreneur near Marina Ael Rey stopped that particular fight between the boating community and
effort after a short trial period, despite the fact the Los Angeles Harbor District has been over
that on some weekends people cannot find available development of Reeves Field as a recreational harbor
parking in this popular marina area. with substantial land use for boat storage as well
Along some stretches of the Southern California as picnic areas. The harbor management personnel
coast, residential development is so dense that one have argued that this parcel is essential as a fill
cannot even see the ocean. For instance, along the site for dredge spoil, to be then used for car storage
Pacific Coast Highway in parts of Santa Monica and facilities or as a proposed LNG terminal. They have
Malibu, a sightseer is confronted with a solid "China suggested the Fort MacArthur site as an alternative
Wall" of garage doors. Many of the homes here do recreational harbor, but have not addressed the
not even have windows on the inland side, and the questions of land title to that area, suitability of
walkways are blocked by wooden gates. the space for dry boat storage, effect on water
Many of the marinas in Los Angeles and Long quality of nearby beach, nor the conflict posed by
Beach Harbors are surrounded by industrial shipping the existing deep draft Union Oil Terminal. In this
facilities and barely have enough parking space for harbor complex, with one of the area's oldest and
the boat owners they serve. There are no park areas most prestigious yacht clubs, the boaters have
around these marinas for public enjoyment of them. banded together in an effort to gain significant
Even Marina del Rey, built to berth nearly 6,000 additional marina space in the harbor.
boats, has only two shore areas designed for public Commercial support facilities for recreational
access to the marina, plus several shoreside activities, particularly boat repair and service
restaurants. shops, have difficulty competing for space on the
A few of the sandy beaches most accessible coast even though they are water- dependent. Un-
to the downtown Los Angeles area have become fortunately, coastal properties taxed for "highest
environmentally unpleasant because of industrial and best use" favor condominiums and restaurants
facilities in the adjacent upland area. The Los whose incomes can better offset the high taxation.
Angeles Airport take-off pattern is directly over The recreational users further feel the impacts
El Segundo Beach. Every four or five minutes all of conflicting coastal uses through resource deple-
communication on the beach is stopped by the tion. The sports fishermen find and catch fewer

fish per unit of effort (partly because of increased mercial recreational uses of the coast over private
numbers of fishermen, but also because estuarine residential use, general industrial, or general com-
habitats for juveniles have been destroyed or severely mercial development, but not over agriculture or
polluted through development). coastal dependent industry. It recommends that
Pollution in some areas has weakened plant and public facilities be distributed throughout an area
faunal life in underwater environments, allowing to limit the impacts of overuse and overcrowding.
biological communities to be destroyed and replaced Furthermore, the act recommends the protection,
by heartier species such as urchins. Coastal areas encouragement and, where feasible, the provision of
depleted of kelp may be less interesting for diving lower cost visitor and recreational facilities (e.g.,
activities and often support fewer fish. During the campgrounds and parks).
last ten years pollution from Palos Verdes Peninsula To alleviate the parking conflicts, the Com-
runoff has decreased and biological communities in mission has required the provision of on- site parking
some of the underwater environments have gradually spaces for new coastal developments. Through
improved. Researchers have done some experimental development of local coastal programs under the
kelp transplants in Abalone Cove on the Palos Verdes provisions of the act, impacts of recreational facili-
Peninsula to try to reestablish the once lush macro- ties on traffic congestion will be reviewed and
cystis (kelp) environment. attempts will be made to mitigate traffic problems,
While most of the beaches in Southern Cali- perhaps through wider distribution of new facilities.
fornia maintain sufficiently high water quality to The limited space available for boat berthing
remain open for swimming, shellfishing is often will continue to be a problem. The act does allow
prohibited because of the concentration of pollutants for expansion and development of new marinas
in these filter feeders. within existing harbors, but the port commissions
that control the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors,
What Is Being Done? where the greatest pressures are, have shown tremen-
dous resistance toward accommodating recreational
In 1972, in accordance with Proposition 20, needs. The ports must submit master plans to the
the California Coastal Commission was formed to Coastal Commission for approval, thus giving the
design a conservation plan for the future develop- Coastal Commission an opportunity to place condi-
ment and preservation of California's coastal zone. tions on the port plan. However, there is no clear
The resulting plan was submitted to the legislature indication at this time that recreational needs will
in 1976, and significant portions of it became the be given higher priority than even a portion of com-
California Coastal Act of 1976. mercial port facilities.
The act emphasizes protection of environmental The Coastal Act does encourage development of
resources (aesthetics as well as habitats, agriculture, additional boat-launching ramps and increased dry
and other natural resources), public access, and storage facilities. Many of the smaller boats now
recreational opportunities. It refers to the right of occupying berthing space may be forced out of the
the people under the California Constitution to access water by the growing shortage of available berthing
to the sea "where acquired through use, or legisla- facilities.
tive authorization." It requires that. (with some A companion act to the Coastal Act of 1976
exceptions) public access from the nearest public established a California Coastal Conservancy. The
roadway and along the coast be provided in new conservancy is empowered to acquire accessways and
development projects. While there is little oppor- buffer zones adjacent to recreational areas and
tunity, under the provisions of the act, to change environmentally fragile habitats, which will enhance
existing barriers to access, the Coastal Commission the quality of the recreational experience and the
has set a precedent for approving permits for change richness of the habitat areas. The conservancy can
to existing development only on condition that also make advance loans to coastal communities
public access is provided. for areas to be acquired within ten years. The con-
The act gives priority to visitor-serving com- servancy should ease some of the burden on local

.46

governments of increasing public access and preserv- What Are the Outstanding Issues?
ing habitats and agricultural open space. The effec- In ISouthern California there is little interest
tiveness of this act has not yet been tested. in seeking public transportation solutions to recrea-
A third statewide measure that will affect public tional access (or any other problems!). Much of the
access and recreation on the California coast is the traffic and parking congestion could be alleviated if
Parklands Acquisition Bond Act, which was passed public transportation were accepted by the public.
by the voters in November 1976. This authorizes For example, office parking areas used heavily during
the issuance of bonds to fund parkland acquisition, the week could be used on weekends by beachgoers
a portion being allocated for identified coastal who would travel the last few miles to the beaches
parcels. in shuttle buses. Also public transportation could
At the local level, action is being taken to be used to distribute use of the beaches.
improve marine recreational opportunities too. In Because the beach communities cater to regional
1974, the County of Los Angeles was given a title as well as local demands, they are bearing a burden
easement for use of much of Catalina Island as a of financial responsibility for maintenance and
cons&rvation and recreational area. Very careful development of increased access and facilities.
planning is being carried out to ensure that the Although the local coastal programs mandated by
quality and uniqueness of the island are maintained, the Coastal Act are supposed to identify regional
while increased hiking, camping, and sightseeing demand on local coastal facilities, there is no
opportunities are developed. established provision for compensating communities
The Los Angeles County Department of Beaches for the extra financial burden encountered. To place
has an excellent long-term acquisition program direct use charges on nonlocal users is deemed
for new beach areas. Many of the newer beaches discriminatory and tends to intensify the lack of
acquired are in more fragile environments and access experienced by those who cannot afford to
include rocky tidepool shorelines as well as sandy live on the coast.
beaches. Considerable effort is being made to design A further financial burden is experienced by
the facilities to protect the resources while increasing the coastal communities when new coastal areas are
access. Unfortunately budget limitations deny public acquired for public use and are thereby taken off
education opportunities that would encourage proper the tax rolls. The cost of maintenance and beach
use of particularly fragile areas of access. Interpretive
signs have been planned, but have not been imple- safety goes up while the,. local revenues are de-
,mented in these areas. creased. The dilemma has been posed, but no resolu-
The Los Angeles County Department of Beaches tion has been determined. Most public money comes
has also been responsible for the development of ten from taxes, so the public in the long run must
accessways from the nearest public road to the beach bear the responsibility.
in the Malibu area. Public rights-of-way have been The determination to be made is what should be
found through property title searches and the public the size and composition of the tax base supporting
option for the corridors has been exercised. These a facility meeting regional marine recreation
accessways allow the public to walk along the beach demands. Boating facilities in California are in fact
from the water up to the mean high tide line. They supported by boater fuel taxes. Most of the beach
especially increase opportunities for surf fishing, and park facilities have been supported by local com-
scuba diving, tidepool observation, and beach walks. munities or coastal counties, but as increased access
In Newport Beach, in Orange County, a new city is developed there is considerable concern that the
policy increases the density allowance of marine- burden of responsibility should be subsidized by a,
related uses of coastal properties as an incentive broader base, such as the State General Fund.
to keep marine businesses on the coast despite high
land costs and taxation. The theory is that with
higher density allowances these businesses will be
able to afford the coastal location.

Patterns of Jurisdiction in the Coastal Belt

Lewis Alexander

Professor of Geography and Marine Affairs, University of Rhode island

Issues of conflict resolution in the coastal control management at the state level. Responsibili-
belt inevitably involve the question of jurisdiction, ties for regulation and enforcement may be shared
that is "Who has the authority to make decisions?" by a group of departments, such as the Department
There may be one single agency or several agencies. of Health and the Department of Natural Resources.
More than one level of government may be involved. But the federal government may also be involved
And since both the coastal zone concept itself and through the Environmental Protection Agency, the
some of the offshore zones of control are relatively Office of Coastal Zone Management, and the Army
new phenomena, considerations of jurisdiction in Corps of Engineers. And local agencies may also be
the coastal belt are still often unresolved - a fact concerned in the management process, as for
which serves to complicate the management process. example a town conservation commission or plan-
The question of jurisdiction has two dimensions, ning board.
one geographical and one functional. Geographically, Geographical and functional elements of juris-
there is the issue of boundaries - where are the diction form a complex mosaic within the U.S. coastal
limits of various juridical zones, such as the terri- belt. The boundaries of juridical zones are frequently
torial sea and the continental shelf? Where are the indistinct. Where for example are the inland bound-
boundaries of U.S. offshore zones where they abut aries of the "coastal zone" of the various states?
the zones of Canada, Mexico, or Cuba? When seen Where are the offshore boundaries separating one
from a functional standpoint the question has two state's waters from another state's? As noted earlier,
sets of factors to be considered. First, there is the there are still a great many uncertainties concerning
level of government which has authority over all or jurisdictional issues in the coastal belt. This paper
some activities within juridical zones of the coastal does not attempt to resolve such uncertainties, but
belt. The principal governmental levels are inter- rather suggests a conceptual framework within which
national, national, state, and local. The term "local," questions of authority may be considered.
as used here, refers to minor civil divisions, such as Boundaries and Zones of Jurisdiction
counties, cities, and townships, as well as "special
purpose" administrations, as in the case of land The most critical geographic point in the coastal
use and coastal zone management groups. belt is the tidal area, that is, the zone between high
A second functional aspect concerns the agencies and low tideline. This is the contact point where the
at various levels of government which have the land and water environments intersect one another
responsibilities for regulating and managing activi- and where the physical effects of interaction between
ties within the coastal belt. Such responsibilities the two environments are the strongest. The hori-
often overlap one another, both within the context zontal extent of the tidal zone may be a mile or
of particular governmental levels as well as between more, or it may be zero. On the upper courses of
such levels. Take, for example, marine pollution rivers and creeks, for example, the tidal range may

be nonexistent so that the high and low tidelines by a line from Point Judith eastward to Sakonnet
may be the same; in the case of precipitous cliffs Point. Waters within the Bay are internal; from the
facing the sea there is vertical movement of water straight baseline seaward the three-mile territorial
throughout the day, although no horizontal change. sea is measured.
But regardless of the variations in its physical nature, Within the territorial sea the United States
the tidal area of the United States is a primary ele- exercises complete sovereignty, save for the right
ment in coastal belt jurisdiction and management. of innocent passage through territorial water by
There are several categories of tideline. Among foreign vessels. Passage is considered to be innocent
these are mean high and mean low water, mean spring so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good
tide, and mean lower low water. The latter is the order, or security of the coastal country. Foreign
lower of the two low waters of any tidal day, and vessels may not fish in the territorial sea, foreign
is important if there is considerable difference in submarines may not transit submerged, and there is
the location of the low-water line between the first no right of overflight of territorial water by foreign
and the second low tides of the day. The choice of aircraft While the United States, for 194 years, has
tidelines is important when one comes to measure clung to a three-mile-wide territorial sea, a majority
the territorial sea and other offshore zones of control. of the world's coastal nations now claim twelve miles.
The further out a country places its baseline for such Some claim in excess of twelve, a few even to 200
measurements, the further offshore its jurisdiction miles.
extends. Along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the U.S. By the Submerged Lands Act of 1954 the United
measures seaward from the line of mean low tide; States relinquished to the coastal states ownership
on the Pacific coast, the baseline for measurement of the offshore areas out to three nautical miles from
is the line of lower low tide. The choices of tideline shore; therefore, the living and nonliving resources
are also important, of course, to municipalities and of the territorial sea, and of the seabed and subsoil
property owners along the coast. Laws vary, for underlying that sea, belong to the coastal state.
example, from state to state with respect to property Exceptions were made in the Gulf of Mexico off the
owners' rights in the tidal area between high and coasts of Texas and Florida, where, because of
low tide. And they vary also according to the original "historic rights," state ownership extends to nine
source of title to the property. miles from shore. Beyond the boundaries of state
Although the use of the tideline for measuring jurisdiction, marine resources (particularly oil and
offshore zones of control is generally appropriate gas) belong to the federal government.
along smooth shorelines, complications may arise in Another offshore area is the contiguous zone,
the case of rugged or island-fringed coasts, coasts which lies between the three-mile outer limit of
marked by bayous or swamps, the expanding deltas the territorial sea and a distance of twelve miles
of rivers, coral atolls, and modifications made to from the coast. This is a special zone of the high
the coast by man in the form of jetties, harborworks, seas in which the United States has the right to
and other structures. For most of these situations take steps to prevent violations of its customs,
there are generally recognized procedures for delimit- fiscal, sanitation, and immigration laws. Such steps
ing the baseline from which the breadth of the terri- could include the boarding and arrest of vessels
torial seais measured, although differences may exist within the zone which are suspected of engaging in,
among countries on such issues as the proper condi- or planning, illegal activities within the United States
tions for delimiting straight baselines along irregular or its territorial sea. The U.S. applies the Federal
coasts, or the criteria which should be used for Water Quality Improvement Act within this area.
designating certain coastal waters as "historic" in The U.S. also has laws prohibiting the discharge
nature. The waters of bays, estuaries, or other features from tankers of oil or oily mixtures on the high
across whose mouths straight closing lines have been seas beyond its contiguous zone. According to the
drawn have the status of internal waters. Over such 1962 Amendments to the International Convention
areas the United States has complete sovereignty. for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
Narragansett Bay, for example, is closed off juridically prohibited zones are set up extending to 50 miles

off the coasts of countries which are party to the zone formula are coastal state rights out to 200
Convention. Discharges of oil and oily mixtures are miles to regulate the construction of artificial
forbidden within such zones. In addition there is islands and installations, and the production of
a special prohibited zone off the northeastern U.S. energy from water, currents, or winds. Only time will
and Canada which at one point in the Georges Bank tell if the United States may begin moves toward
area extends More than 140 miles seaward of the asserting authority over vessel-source pollution
nearest point along the U.S. coast. The U.S. has the and other activities within the 200-mile fisheries
right within the prohibited zone to monitor foreign conservation and management zone.
tankers with respect to the willful discharge of oil, A final juridical belt is the continental shelf,
although the prosecution of violators is the responsi- extending seaward from the territorial sea to a depth
bility of the country whose flag the vessel is flying. of 200 meters, or just over 600 feet. The United
On March 1, 1977, the provisions of the Fishery States has exclusive jurisdiction over the exploration
Conservation and Management Act went into effect, and exploitation of the resources of the seabed and
establishing an exclusive fishery zone for the United subsoil of the shelf, including not only oil, gas,
States to a distance of 200 miles from shore. Within and placer deposits such as sand, gravel, and mineral-
the zone, the U.S. has jurisdiction over all fisheries ized sands, but also living resources of the shelf -
except highly migratory species, particularly tuna. that is clams, mussels, and certain species of crab.
These are to be managed by an appropriate inter- Several years ago, the United States, in a unilateral
national authority. In addition, the United States move, included also lobsters as "creatures of the
claims jurisdiction over anadromous species (e.g., -shelf." The outer edge of the shelf in some cases
salmon) of U.S. origin, wherever they may be located lies less than 200 miles from shore and in other
on the high seas outside the territorial or fisheries cases is well beyond 200 miles. The authority claimed
zones Of foreign countries. Not only is the Conser- under the Fishery Conservation and Management
vation and Management Act itself unilateral in nature, Act does not extend to the seabed and subsoil.
but so too is the provision regarding anadromous The provisions of the 1958 Continental Shelf
species. While there is some precedence for the 200- Convention contain a description of the outer limits
mile act in terms of current negotiations now going of the juridical shelf as being at a depth of 200
on at the Third Law of the Sea Conference, and of meters, or beyond where the depth admits of the
state practice, as exemplified by the actions of exploitation of the natural resources of the area.
Canada, Mexico, Iceland, and the EEC, there is no In other words, according to that convention, once
precedence whatever for the claims to jurisdiction a coastal state has the technological capacity to
over anadromous stocks wherever they are found on exploit the resources of the seabed and subsoil at
the high seas. But the implementation of customary depths greater than 200 meters, it can also claim
international law works in mysterious ways. Who jurisdiction over these resources. Most international
could have foreseen at the time that Truman's Procla- lawyers agree that if one country demonstrates this
mation of U.S. rights on the continental shelf, or capacity, and issues a claim to shelf areas beyond
Norways delimitation of straight baselines along its the 200-meter isobath, all other coastal states of
North Sea coast, would eventually become accepted the world can file similar claims. Ocean technology
as tenets of international law? is a mobile element, and the capacity one country
It should be noted that in the terms of the has can generally be purchased Or otherwise made
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the available to other countries as well. But since 1964,
United States asserts jurisdiction over fisheries when the Continental Shelf Convention came into
resources only. This regime differs from that en- force, no coastal state has, on the basis of techno-
visaged in the "economic zone" concept as espoused logical capacity, laid claim to shelf areas beyond
in Law of the Sea Conference negotiations, in that the 200-meter depth. The deepest commercial oil
the latter includes coastal state jurisdiction over exploration, for example, is currently at less than
environmental control and scientific research within 500 feet.
200 n-dles from shore. Also involved in the economic It is anticipated that the exploitability criterion

will shortly be overtaken by events. At the current become involved in environmental impact state-
law of the sea negotiations coastal states are talking ments, inasmuch as pollution from activities on
about national claims to the resources of the entire federally owned lands may soon come to affect
continental margin - shelf, slope, and rise - out to state waters as well. Or consider the federal/state
some point at the "outer edge" of the rise. What aspects of superport construction in the Gulf'of
this point will be is still undetermined: the, 2,500- Mexico or off the East Coast of the U.S., including
meter isobath, a location some miles seaward of the the right. of state veto of the federal license for
contact line between the slope and the rise, a line an offshore port.
based on the depths of sediment on the continental There are those who would argue that what we
rise, or perhaps at the "last grain of sand" of the need is one superagency to handle activities in our
rise itself. But however the "outer edge" may be offshore areas, including the seabed and subsoil.
defined, it seems likely that state practice will soon There are others who would say that what is required
be that coastal countries have jurisdiction over the is a return of the National Council on Marine Re-
living and nonliving resources of their entire conti- sources and Engineering Development, or a similar
nental margin. interagency group, which can pull together the
Within the various zones of offshore jurisdiction various federal units associated with coastal belt
the United States shares its authority with the inter- development. One could even go further than the
national community. The U.S. is insistent on provid- national council concept and suggest some initiative
ing that the waters beyond territorial sea limits in which the individual coastal states can themselves
have the status of high seas, with their attendant participate. I shall return to this interagency concept
freedoms for all nations to enjoy. Yet, given those shortly; first let us consider the coastal zone concept
rights which the United States itself maintains in as part of the coastal belt complex.
these offshore zones, two questions emerge.'First, The idea of the coastal zone as a discrete
which activities in the offshore areas come under the geographical unit seems to have surfaced in the 1969
purview of the federal government, and which are the report of the Stratton Commission; it was formally
responsibility of the individual states? Second, within embodied in the 197 2 Coastal Zone Management Act.
the federal and state branches of government, which Two things are of interest here: the seaward and
particular agencies have authority over coastal landward limits of the coastal zone, and the pro-
belt phenomena? - visions in the act for federal/state interactions. The
The answers to these questions may be complex. seaward limits of the coastal zone are the limits of
For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service the territorial sea, that is, three nautical miles from
of the Department of Commerce has jurisdiction over shore, Should the U.S. territorial sea eventually be
fisheries matters within the 200-mile zone, but its expanded to twelve miles, under existing legislation
authority is restricted (1) by the eight regional fish- the seaward limit of the coastal zone would also be
eries management councils; (2) by the coastal states twelve miles. The landward limits, as defined by the
with respect to fisheries which are carried out pre- act, are left to the states. Specifically, the 1972
dominantly within coastal state waters; and (3) by the legislation states "The definition of the coastal zone
Department of State with respect to fisheries involv- in the Act recognizes that no single geographic
ing neighboring countries, and to the allocation of definition will satisfy the management needs of all
quotas of surplus catch to foreign states '. As another coastal states, because designation of the coastal
example, the Bureau of Land Management of the zone for management purposes must take into
Department of Interior has jurisdiction over the account the diverse natural, institutional, and legal
leasing of continental shelf areas for oil and gas characteristics that are subject to decisions made
exploration and exploitation, but the Environmental in fulfillment of othe r requirements of the Act . . ."
Protection Agency has a major role in the determi- The practice of states varies considirably so far
nation of acceptable pollution levels for hydrocarbon as determination of this jurisdictional inland
development. And the agencies of any state off boundary is concerned. Texas, for example, defines
whose shores oil- and gas-leasing is taking place its coastal area as comprising all counties having

tidewater shoreline; California and Oregon define "prior to granting approval of a State program the
the landward boundaries of their coastal zones as Secretary of Commerce must find that the [state]
the crest of the coastal mountain ranges, while management program provides for adequate con-
Delaware and New Jersey describe the inland sideration of the national interest in the siting of
boundary of the zone in terms of their highway the facilities which are other than local in nature."
system. Florida and Louisiana define the landward When we run out of suggestions on jurisdictional
boundary of their coastal zones from the standpoint problems we might then turn our attention to addres-
of the extent inland of maritime influences, while sing the issue of what constitutes the national
Rhode Island gives its Coastal Zone Management interest.
Council authority not over a fixed geographic area, The jurisdictional problems in the coastal belt
but rather inland from the coast as far as necessary are becoming increasingly complex. The United
to conduct effective management programs. States may soon extend seaward its jurisdictional
Since all of these definitions are only a few claims to the resources of the seabed and subsoil.
years in existence, it is still too early to suggest It may soon increase its claims to competence within
which definitions are superior to other ones. But it the 200-mile zone. It must soon work out its maritime
should be noted that both the federal legislation and boundary problems with neighboring states (and if
the responses of at least some coastal states imply one considers the offshore boundaries not only of
the functional character of the inland coastal zone continental United States, but of its territories as
limit. This follows from the fact that the coastal well, the number comes to over thirty-five). The U.S.
zone itself is largely a functional phenomenon. But must face increased problems not only of offshore oil
there may be an analogy between functional bound- and gas production, but of transportation of these
aries on land and certain of those in the sea. Might products, as for example from Valdez, Alaska, to the
not offshore management make more sense in terms U.S. west coast. In addition, the individual coastal
of concrete pheriomen" a or processes than of rigidly states will be developing and implementing their
proscribed limits? Som ,e years ago, for example, own coastal zone management plans which must be
the United States suggested that fisheries in its tied in with the new offshore rights and responsi-
coastal waters beyond narrow territorial limits might bilities. What does all this portend in terms of
better be handled from the "species approach" jurisdiction?
rather than from a sharply defined 200-mile limit. In the panel presentations which follow this
In years to-come, coastal countries with well-defined opening paper, you will hear many statements on
commercial stocks, which at times pass more than jurisdictional issues from the standpoint of fish-
200 miles from shore, can be expected to retain eries, oil and gas, transportation, and pollution.
management functions over these resources even But let me return momentarily to my theme of the
when they are beyond the 200-mile zone. What is need for coordination. The coastal belt is a geo-
true of fisheries might also hold for environmental graphical entity, and as such its needs and oppoy-
protection, and for the unity of deposits of offshore tunities should not necessarily be approached on a
hydrocarbons. piecemeal basis. There could be a lead agency
In a system as complex as the coastal zone, responsible for orchestrating activities in the coastal
state and federal jurisdictions often overlap one belt. Or there could be a return to an interagency
another, as do the jurisdictions of agencies at the organization with a coordinating role. Whatever the
federal, state, and local levels. The 1972 Act speci- procedure used, one caveat is important. Whatever
fically excludes from the coastal zone those lands restructuring the federal government may undergo in
the use of which is by law subject solely to the the interests of the coastal belt, some mechanisms
direction of, or which is held in trust by, the federal must be established for continuous interaction with
government. The panelists this morning will go in the individual coastal states. This implies, of course,
some detail into aspects of federal/state conflict that the coastal states themselves will evolve appro-
and conflict resolution in the coastal belt. But I priate institutions and procedures for -responding
would, in passing, like to point out one of the to federal initiatives for interaction. Only in these
more interesting provisions of the Coastal Zone ways can the new real estate which the U.S. has
Management Act, Section 302(a) which reads in part acquired be effectively organized and managed.

implications of the Changes in Fisheries Law for
the U.S. Coastal States

Francis X. Cameron

Assistant Professor, Marine Affairs Program, University of Rhode Island

During the past several years a number of Court of Alaska adopted a radical extension of this
significant changes have occurred in the area of doctrine by upholding the right of the state to regu-
fisheries law. I'd like to concentrate on how these late the harvesting of crabs by citizens and non-
changes affect state authority over fisheries and will citizens alike in the Bering Sea, outside of Alaskan
address three broad areas: the effect of the Fishery territorial waters. The court, in a broad interpretation
Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) on the of prior law, deemphasized the importance of the
states, the opportunities presented by the Coastal citizenship requirement and placed primary im-
Zone Management Act, and the effect of some judicial portance on the legitimate state interest require-
decisions on state law. ment. The legitimate interest was the importance. of
A number of court decisions have upheld the crab-fishing to the Alaskan economy and the need
authority of the states to regulate fisheries within to conserve the stocks wherever they were found.
the three-mile territorial sea and this case law was This argument may make sense from a fisheries
further reinforced by the Submerged Lands Act management point of view but, from a legal stand-
passed in 1953. This act granted the coastal states point, there was no basis for the exercise of state
ownership of and the right to manage the natural jurisdiction, since it was outside of state waters
resources within the three-mile territorial sea. The and the fishermen had no institutionalized con-
FCMA is primarily concerned with fisheries beyond nection with the state.
three miles and basically does not decrease or The FCMA may provide, through the "registra-
increase state management authority in the three- tion" requirement I mentioned earlier, the other con-
mile area. However, the FCMA does contain provi- nection necessary for state control of fishing outside
sions which could have a potential impact on state their territory. This could be a potentially important
authority. One of these is the provision that states management tool, depending on how aggressively
may not directly or indirectly regulate any fishing and quickly the regional councils pursue their
outside of their territorial waters, unless the vessel responsibilities. One example could have been the
is registered under the laws of that state. Extra- regulation of groundfish in the fishery conservation
territorial control by the states is not a new idea. zone on the east coast. After United States with-
Back in 1948, the Supreme Court in the Shifiotes case dTawal from ICNAF, there was no management
upheld the right of Florida to regulate a fishery authority over domestic fishermen outside of three
beyond three miles if the fisherman was a citizen miles. The fear was that, without regulation, our
of the state, if the state had a legitimate interest fishermen would hit the groundfish stocks hard and
in the fishery, and there was no conflict with a cause further depletion. This in fact happened to a
federal law. Numerous cases since then have upheld limited extent in the ping-pong haddock fishery.
the right of the states to regulate their citizens' NOAA used the emergency powers in the act to regu-
fishing on the high seas. Last year the Supreme late U.S. fishing of groundfish and eventually the

Regional Council developed a permanent manage- state laws are incorporated as much as possible into
ment plan for these stocks; if no plan had been regional council plans. The FCMA gives the councils
formulated, the emergency regulations could only discretion to incorporate state regulations into
have been used for two 45-day periods. After that, their management plans. This could be important to
there would have been no regulatory authority over a state like California which has traditionally
domestic fishermen. In addition to this possible managed the shrimp fishery beyond her waters. Now
situation, there could also be cases where legal that the councils have sole management authority
challenges delay implementation of a plan. It is over those areas, California has an interest in seeing
in this gray area that a state, or states acting together their regulations incorporated into the regional
through an interstate agreement could impose council shrimp management plan. The North Pacific
management controls on all vessels registered in Council has recently voted to incorporate the Alaskan
the state, even when the vessels were outside state Limited Entry Program into its plan for the troll
waters. Again, the use of this mechanism depends salmon fishery outside of three miles, and the
on how the councils go about their work A problem recently Promulgated Pacific Council troll salmon
in this area is how to define registration. The FCMA plan emphasizes the need for close coordination and
is silent on this and most states do not have a unity of purpose between the council plan and the
direct registration law for fishing vessels. One alterna- coastal states of Washington, Oregon, and California.
tive is to use the federal enrollment and licensing In order to achieve this coordination and unity
statute and the declaration under that statute of a of purpose, states should be able to react responsive-
home port. A second alternative would be the enact- ly. However, a major problem faced in many state
ment of state registration laws similar to a recent agencies is that their management capabilities are
Rhode Island statute that requires all fishing vessels severely constrained by the lack of adequate author-
operating from Rhode Island or in Rhode Island ity.
waters, to be registered with the state. This may In some states, all rules and regulations con-
give the states more latitude in extraterritorial control cerning fisheries - for example, season dates, size
than would use of the federal statute. limits - are specified in statutes and require legisla-
A second area of possible impact for the states tive action for change. This is a very slow and often
is the federal preemption provision (mentioned by frustrating process, especially in those states where
Brian Rothschild). The FCMA does provide for pre- the legislature meets only for a short time each year
emption of state authority if three conditions exist: or only every other year. This type of fisheries man-
first, there must be a council management plan for agement arrangement is extremely inflexible and
the fishery in question; second, the fishing for that unresponsive, especially when compared to states
species must occur predominantly in the fishery like North Carolina or Rhode Island, where virtually,
conservation zone; and third, state action or inaction all regulatory authority is in the administrative
must substantially and adversely affect the manage- agency.
ment plan. As mentioned yesterday, NOAA would use The Rhode Island legislation created a Marine
both domestic and foreign landing statistics to Fisheries Council, which has the authority to set
determine where the predominant fishing was. The regulations concerning harvesting techniques, size,
legislative history of this provision, combined with season, catch, and area limits, without going to the
the fact that there are not many species that will legislature. In North Carolina, the Marine Fisheries
meet the "predominantly" definition, indicates that Commission exercises authority over "any and every
preemption will not occur very often, if at all. But aspect of cultivation, taking, possessing, transport-
even if it only occurs in one case, its going to ing, processing, selling, utilizing, and disposing,of
raise a serious controversy. Therefore, it is in the fish taken in coastal fishing waters, whatever the
states' interest to have the administrative and man- purpose of the taking." This is the type of institu-
agement flexibility td coordinate their management tional flexibility that all state fishery agencies should
efforts with the regional c 'ouncils. This is important have. in addition to the extremes of flexibility and
not only to avoid preemption but also to ensure that inflexibility, some states have various types of mixed

authority; for example, in some states the manage- utilize the consistency provision, grows out of the
ment authority over a single stock is split between ARCO controversy in the state of Washington over the
the administrative agency and the legislature for state's tanker safety law. This statute, among other
different purposes, such as regulation of commercial things, prohibits tankers of over 150,000 DWT from
fishing as opposed to regulation of sport fishing. navigating Puget Sound. The law was challenged by
One state, California, has enacted a progressive law the Atlantic Richfield Company on the theory that
giving the State Fisheries Agency the power to make the Federal Port and Waterways Safety Act had pre-
all state fishery laws and regulations conform to empted state action in this area.
any plans promulgated by a Regional Council. Al- The novel argument made in the case by the
though it has still.not been clarified how this par- state of Washington was that the tanker law was
ticular statute relates to the existing fishery manage- part of their approved coastal zone management
ment framework in California, it is the type of program and, therefore, all federal actions under the
legislation necessary to ensure the fullest coopera- Port and Waterways Safety Act would have to be con-
tion between state governments and regional coun- sistent with the Washington tanker law. The case is
cils. pending before the United States Supreme Court and,
Just as the FCMA has potential importance for regardless of the outcome on the federal preemption
state fisheries management, another federal law, the issue or on the consistency issue, the possibility
Coastal Zone Management Act, also presents oppOT- of forcing compliance of federal agency activities
tunities for the states in the area of fisheries man- with state laws and policies through the federal con-
agement. One of these possibilities is the use of the sistency provision remains viable.
federal consistency provision of the act to urge con- The recently promulgated Pacific Council troll
formance of regional council management plans with salmon management plan illustrates how a council
the state fishery conservation and development plan could affect a coastal program that has incor-
scheme. porated fishery regulations and policy. If the short-
Federal consistency is one of the incentives ened troll season of the plan is adopted immediately,
provided in the Coastal Zone Management Act for it would shift fishing effort to state waters with
state participation in the program. Basically, the more liberal seasons, causing a greater impact on
act requires all federal activities, conducted or salmon stocks and fishermen in those areas. The
supported by a federal agency, which directly affect plan could also have a serious impact on existing
a state's coastal zone to be consistent with the ap- commercial buying, processing, and marketing
proved coastal zone management program of the industries and their facilities.
state. This applies to all federal agencies including I'm not suggesting that the states use the con-
the regional councils. Under the regulations promul- sistency provision to hamstring council operations,
gated by NOAA to implement the FCMA, council but only as a constructive vehicle for incorporating
plans must be coordinated and consistent with state state interests into regional council plans. Again,
coastal zone programs. This is true even though the because of state representation on the councils,
council plan will apply to the area beyond the three- and a similarity in state and council goals, this
mile seaward boundary of a state coastal zone. incorporation may occur anyway. Additionally, in
The implication here is that if a. state incor- order to use the consistency provision, state coastal
porates its fishery management regulations or a fish- programs must be developed with an opportunity for
ing facilities expansion plan into its coastal zone full participation by federal agencies. The success
program, then the regional council management plan of the consistency argument will be directly related
will have to be consistent. In this way, the states to how specifically and explicitly the state coastal
could ensure maximum coordination between plan incorporates the state fishery policies, plans,
council plans and. state interests. and regulations. This will require the state CZM
Traditionally, states have not incorporated people to work closely with the state fisheries agency.
specific fishery elements into their coastal programs. The second possibility for using the Coastal
However, the possibility of doing this, in order to Zone Management Act in the area of fisheries man-

agement is the 1976 Interstate Coordination Amend- money for up to 90 percent of the cost of coordinat-
ment to the Act. One of the primary problems of ing, studying, planning, and implementing interstate
fisheries management in the United States is the programs. It also gives a blanket congressional con-
fragmented jurisdictional framework among the sent for any future interstate agreement in this
various state governments. States have widely area. I would think that fisheries management co-
divergent and conflicting laws and regulations for ordination would be a proper subject for Section 309
the same stocks of fish. For example, in New England, funding, and that may be enough of an incentive to
there are three different minimum sizes for lobsters. eliminate some of the political barriers that now
The same situation exists for striped bass on the discourage regional fisheries management, leading to
east coast and in the menhaden and shrimp fisheries more institutional flexibility in the state programs.
on the Gulf. This often leads to confusion and in- The Office of Coastal Zone Management and the
effective fisheries management. Conflicting regula- National Marine Fisheries Service have already begun
tions assume importance when you consider that 70 some preliminary thinking on injecting fisheries
percent of the domestic harvest is composed of management into the state coastal plans, and on
stocks that migrate between jurisdictions. using the interstate coordination provisions of the
Its interesting to note here that the original Act. Use of this provision could be facilitated by
Senate version of the FCMA provided for the secretary making some changes in the state fisheries manage-
of commerce to encourage cooperative action by the ment structure, since most fisheries agencies do not
states, and the enactment of improved and uniform have the discretion to enter into reciprocal agree-
state laws for fisheries management. ments with other states. North Carolina is one of
Although mechanisms exist to resolve these con- the few states that grants its fishery agency the power
flicts and to coordinate fisheries management among to enter into conservation agreements with other
the states, past efforts at coordination have generally states. Some states, such as South Carolina and Texas,
failed due to either the lack of funding, or because provide no authority to their fishery agency to enter
the states have been unwilling to cooperate for poli- into any type of interstate agreement, while others,
tical reasons. Among the methods that could be used like Florida, grant the agency power to enter into
for regional fisheries management are uniform state limited agreements for access to the fishery, but not
laws, reciprocal agreements between states, and the for management in general. The more flexibility the
present marine fisheries commissions. Of all of these, agency has in this regard, the easier it will be to
the use of the marine fisheries commissions has the utilize the Interstate Funding Provision of the Coastal
greatest potential for coordinating state management Zone Management Act and to implement effective
efforts, while relying on the information generated interstate fisheries agreements.
through the . state-federal Fisheries Management At the beginning of this paper, I briefly described
Program. Both the Gulf States Fishery Commission the existing jurisdictional framework for fisheries
and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact management in the United States. I'd like to go back
contain provisions which allow two or more states to to this issue and discuss the recent United States
designate the commission as a joint regulatory Supreme Court decision in Douglas v. Sea Coast
authority for a specific fishery. However, only the Products and its implications for state management
Atlantic Compact has utilized this provision, and authority. The case involved a challenge to a Virginia
only in one case - mesh size and season dates statute which prohibited nonresidents from fishing
for the northern shrimp fishery. menhaden in the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake
The recently added Section 309 of the Coastal Bay and prohibited noncitizens from obtaining com-
Zone Management Act may provide an incentive for mercial fishing licenses for any kind of fishing in
the states to use mechanisms like the marine fish- Virginia waters. The statute in question was designed
eries commissions for regional fisheries manage- to operate against fishing companies who, although
ment. This section encourages the states to unify and incorporated in the United States, were wholly owned
coordinate state coastal zone policies and programs. by foreign nationals. Sea Coast was a New York
The encouragement is provided through federal corporation owned by Hanson Trust, Ltd.; an English

corporation, and was denied a license to fish by the would involve the statutes of twelve other states. In
state of Virginia. The federal district court opinion a companion case, Massachusetts v. Wescott, the court,
concluded that the citizenship requirement of the following the same reasoning, struck down the con-
Virginia statute had been preempted by the federal viction of a Rhode Island fisherman for violating
enrollment and licensing laws for fishing vessels. a Massachusetts statute prohibiting nonresidents
These particular federal laws were first enacted in from dragging for fish in state waters during certain
1792 to confer American nationality on a vessel and times of the year.
to license it to engage in various activities. Further- Another potential problem for state fisheries
more, the District Court opinion seemed to imply management, which unfortunately we don@t have
that the states had been completely preempted by the time to discuss, is the area of Indian treaty rights.
federal government in the area of fisheries manage- I'm sure all of you are familiar with Judge Boldt's
ment - a situation that would be directly contrary decision that gave certain Pacific Northwest tribes
to numerous court cases, the Submerged Lands Act, the right to 50 percent of all the harvestable salmon.
and the FCMA. This decision has created a lot of controversy and it's
The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court still unclear what the final outcome will be.
opinion, relying on the famous case of Gibbons v. The second part of the Boldt decision, due - in
Ogden, which involved Robert Fulton and the use of 1978, will deal with an even more controversial
the first steamboats. This case found that the intent issue, the right of the Indians to influence decisions
of the federal enrollment statute was to give vessels that affect fish habitats, such as antipollution laws,
the authority to carry on the activity for which they zoning regulations, building permits, and dragging
were licensed. Applying this to Sea Coast. the practices. In Louisiana, the Choctaw Indians aye
Supreme Court held that the Virginia statute, by suing the state on the grounds that state fishery
prohibiting federally licensed fishing vessels owned regulations do not apply to Indians at all. I think
by nonresidents and noncitizens from fishing in you can see what types of problems these cases can
Virginia waters, violated the federal enrollment create for state fisheries and coastal management.
statute and was therefore illegal. In an interesting One truth about all these cases and statutes was
interpretation the court also held that the Submerged expressed by Jay Cronin, head of the Rhode Island
Lands Act, which granted control of fisheries to the Fish and Wildlife Division. He said that he's been
states, did not repeal the earlier enrollment statute in this business for twenty-six years and one thing
and its requirement of equal treatment for federal it's never been is boring.
licenses. Most importantly, however, the court held
that the states were not completely preempted in the
area of fisheries management. States may impose
reasonable, nondiscriminatory conservation
measures for vessels fishing in their waters. Sea
Coast prevents any discrimination or unequal treat-
ment of nonresidents or noncitizens by the states in
regard to fishing. This principle has been upheld
before on the basis of the constitutional protections
found in the Equal Protection clause, the Privileges
and Immunities clause, and the Commerce clause.
However, the Supreme Court, to avoid unneces-
sary resolutions of constitutional issues, decided
this case on statutory grounds. By not using consti-
tutional grounds, the court decision would invalidate
any state law that favors residents and excludes
nonresidents in a particular fishery, and as pointed
out in the argument to the Supreme Court, this

Legal and Jurisdictional Changes for Oil and Gas
in the Coastal Belt

John L Seymour
Assistant Professor, Marine Resources Management, Department of Management,
Texas A & M University

The conceptualization and development of While the international law of the sea relating
ocean law relating to exploration and exploitation to the minerals beneath the ocean, at least those
of mineral resources, particularly oil and gas, have within the coastal belt, has been agreed to with
historically provided and will continue to provide relative ease, the same cannot be said for the develop-
that which is suggested by the title of this conference ment of this law from the perspective of state-
- pron-dse, conflict, and conflict resolution. The federal relations within our own country. The most
event that perhaps signaled the beginning of our significant legal cases (often referred to as the
present interests in ocean law was the Truman Tidelands cases), in terms of allocating the natural
Proclamation of 1945, which declared the sovereign resources within the coastal belt, have been those
right of the United States to exploit the natural associated with state-federal disputes over oil and
resources of our adjacent continental shelf. The gas. The jurisdictional and ownership conflicts
impetus for this claim was the recognition that these between the coastal states and the federal govern-
submerged lands "promised" to surrender vast ment have been a continuing struggle, one which
amounts of oil and gas. The development of tech- will continue as ocean law changes.
nology and the need for new sources of hydrocarbons For purposes of this paper, the term "ocean law"
had led us to pursue new ventures in the ocean. refers to that combination of law of the sea and
It was clear that there was a vacuum in international federal and state law and jurisdiction that interface.
law regarding this potential wealth and "conflict" What are the changes in ocean law that we currently
was likely. see taking place; how do these changes relate to 7
Following the Truman Proclamation, customary previous trends that we have seen in the law to
international law on the exploitation of mineral accommodate the various parties; and what can we
resources of continental shelves developed with sur- determine from an examination of these changes and
prising speed and with little dispute as to its trends to help us resolve potential conflicts over
direction. The 1958 Geneva Convention on the minerals in the coastal belt? These will be the topics
Continental Shelf codified this recent addition to the of discussion for the next few minutes. While the
law of the sea. While this was being accomplished central focus will be the state-federal relationship,
with comparative ease and relatively little dispute, it will also be useful to review certain international
these efforts awakened much of the subsequent law changes and trends as well as state-state impli-
debate. To be sure, there are still disagreements cations.
on some of the particulars of the law of the sea
concerning the exploitation of minerals from the Increasing State Participation
continental shelf; however, this is not one of the
central areas of dispute in the present Third In recent years, there has been a significant
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. trend to increase the participation of the several

states in federal activities and programs in the ocean nental shelf production; and (5) a state where a
and on the continental shelf beyond state boundaries. significant risk of serious damage from outer conti-
Legislation like the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, nental shelf disasters exists. I "Development' is
which, through the adjacent state provisions, gives defined to include "operation of all on-shore facili-
states significant input into federal decisions, has ties" as well as geophysical activity, drilling, and
altered the state-federal relationship considerably. platform construction. 2
The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of In the proposed act, there are six different
1976 and its provisions for coordinating state, national policy statements for the outer continental
regional, and federal fisheries management efforts shelf. Numbers (4) and (5) should be of particular
through the establishment of the regional fisheries interest to the states. The Congress declares that:
management councils has further demonstrated the (4) since exploration development and production of the
trend toward a greater partnership between the states mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf will have
and the federal government. Some legislation, such as significant impacts on coastal and non-coastal areas of the
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 with its coastal states, and on other affected states, and in recognition
of the national interest in the effective management of the
famous but perhaps elusive conceptof "consistency," marine coastal and human environments -
has yet to be Proven. However, it at least demonstrates (A) such states may require assistance in protecting their
a congressional intent to further the cooperative coastal zones and other affected areas from any temporary
or permanent adverse affects of such impacts; and
efforts of the federal government and the states. (B) such states are entitled to an opporrunityto participate,
A bill that is at present pending before Congress to the extent consistent with the national interest in the
would dramatically increase state input into the policy and planning decisions made by the federal govem-
decision-making processes surrounding the explora- ment relating to exploration for, and development and
production of, mineral resources of the Outer Continental
tion and exploitation of minerals from the outer Shelf;
continental shelf. (5) the rights and responsibilities of all states to preserve and
On January 10, 1977, Senators Jackson and protect their marine human and coastal environments through
such means as regulation of land, air, and water uses, of safety,
Metcalf introduced Senate Bill S.9 (the companion and of related development and activity should be considered
bill in the House was H.R. 1614 introduced by and recognized. 3
Representative Murphy). The bill, which is cited as These and other policy statements they accompany
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments
Of 1977, was referred to the Committee on Interior could provide the basis for some substantive judicial
of OCS development decisions.
and Insular Affairs. If passed, this bill will greatly review
modify OCS development procedures. Of particular The section entitled "Administration of Leasing
of the Outer Continental Shelf' calls for the secretary
interest are the amount of information that would
to prescribe regulations for:
be made available to state and local governments
before OCS development takes place and the oppor- (2) the cancellation of any lease or permit at any time, when it
tunity for state and local government input into is determined, after hearings, that continued activity pursuant
decisions on how, when, and where OCS development to such lease or permit would cause serious harm or damage
which would not decrease over a reasonable period of time,
will take place. The following is a brief discussion to life (including aquatic life), to property, to any mineral
of those provisions that involve state and local deposits (in areas leased or not yet leased), to the national
security or defense, or to the marine, coastal, or human
governments. environment 4
Two of the terms defined in the act are "affected
state" and "development." "Affected state" is defined The section goes on," to state that the lessee, in the
as: (1) a state whose laws are effective for that event of cancellatiorii, shall be compensated. This
portion of the outer continental shelf; (2) a state provision might provide a mechanism for states such
which is connected by transportation facilities to as California to stop production in areas which they
the outer continental shelf; (3) a state which receives consider environmentally undesirable.
oil for processing from the outer continental shelf; The leasing and bidding sections of the amend-
(4) a state which has a substantial probability of ments direct the secretary, when soliciting nomina-
environmental or social impact from outer conti- tions for the leasing of lands within three miles of

the seaward boundary of any coastal state, to provide management program to assure consistency to the
7
the governor of that state with the following infor- maximum extent possible.
mation: One of the most significant provisions would
(A) an identification and schedule of these areas and regions allow the governors of affected states to form regional
offered for leasing; outer continental shelf advisory boards whose
(B) all information concerning the geographical, geological, membership they would determine after consulta-
and ecological characteristics of such regions; tions with the secretaries of Commerce and Interior.
(C) an estimate of the oil and gas reserves in the areas
prepared for leasing; and Where a regional advisory board or the governor of
(D) an identification of any field, geological structure, or any "affected state" makes recommendations as to
trap located within three miles of the seaward boundary of a the size, timing, or location of a proposed lease sale
coastal state.5 or a proposed development and production plan,
If the nominations contain any lands which the the secretary is bound to accept then. "unless he
secretary concludes may contain a field, geological determines they are not consistent with national
structure, or trap located within both federal- and security or overriding national interest."9 This places
state-owned lands, he shall offer the governor the the onus of justification on the Interior Department
opportunity to lease these areas jointly. when states object to its plans.
The secretary would be directed to prepare a , The amendments provide that once a lease is
five-year leasing program. The program is to include obtained, the lessee is required to subn-dt a develop-
as precisely as possible the size, timing, and location ment and production plan to the secretary for
of leasing activity which he detern-dnes will meet approval. 10 The plan would have to describe all facili-
the nation's energy needs for the next five years. ties and operations (other than those on the OCS)
Among the principles to be used in the preparation proposed by the lessee which would be constructed
of the plan are the following: or utilized in the development or production of oil
(2) timing and location of exploration, development, and and gas. .The plan would necessarily include the
production of oil and gas among the oil and gas-bearing location of the facilities and operations as well as
geophysical regions of the Outer Continental Shelf shall be their land, labor, material, and energy requirements.
based on a consideration of - This proposed legislation also contains an
(F) laws, goals, and policies of affected states which have
been specifically identified by the Governor of such states information program. It provides that lessees must
as relative matters for the Secretary's consideration; provide the secretary with access to all. of the data
(G) policies and plans promulgated by coastal states obtained and interpretations of data relating to
pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 exploration or development activities. The secretary
which have been specifically identified by the Governor
of such states as relative matters for the Secretaries' must then supply the states with a summary of the
decision; data designed to assist them in planning for onshore
(H) recommendations and advice given by any Regional
OCS'Advisory Board established pursuant to this Act. 6 impacts of offshore oil and gas production. The
estimates in the summary include:
This section also directs the secretary to invite (A) the oil and gas reserves in the area leased or to be leased;
suggestions, during the preparation of the program, (B) the size and timing of development if found or both;
from the governor of any state which may be an (C) the location of pipelines; and 1 11
"affected state." Upon completion of the program, the (D) the general location and nature of onshore facilities.
secretary must submit it to the governors of the In addition, a designee of the governor may inspect
affected states for review and comment, and then deal the confidential records after the lease sales have
with these comments in writing. These provisions taken place. This information should be an excellent
allow the states to have more input than th ey have asset to,states in their administration of the coastal
had in the past in deciding what will be leased and energy impact program.
the timing of the leases. This section also calls for Title III of the proposed act concerns the Off-
the secretary to establish procedures for review by shore Oil Spill Pollution Fund. This has already been
state and local governments which may be affected addressed by Professor Lutz.
and for coordination with the state coastal zone There is no question that these amendments to

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act would consti- twelve-mile territorial sea be universally adopted the
tute the greatest changes in the administration U.S. would, in fact, take advantage of the provision
of that act since its inception, greatly increasing and adopt the greater distance. The federal govern-
the role of the states in the adn-dnistration of the ment would have to take positive action for any of
OCS. While there appears to be considerable oppo- the changes in law of the sea to become operative
sition to the proposed legislation, the provisions for this country. Such changes as the twelve-mile
to increase the states' role do not appear to be territorial sea would not automatically take place
extraordinary, since most of the states' roles have merely because the principle is accepted as inter-
already been implemented in other contexts in national law. Adoption could conceivably take the
previously passed legislation. form of a presidential proclamation or a congres-
sionally enacted statute. While the sovereign rights
Implications from Changes in International Law to the continental shelf unilaterally claimed by the
United States were adopted through presidential
Changes in ocean law are currently taking proclamation and later confirmed in the Outer
place at the international, federal, and state levels. Continental Shelf Lands Act, the more recent
The changes in ocean law at the international level adoption of our two- hundred- mile exclusive fisheries
may be discerned from a review of the Revised Single management and conservation zone was adopted
Negotiating Text. 12 While there is much dispute initially by congressional statute.. It appears likely
overall, many of the topics (with potential for change) that any change in the width of the territorial sea
under discussion there seem to have such wide would be accomplished through congressional
acceptance that they will surely result in customary action. This, of course, means that there would be
international law regardless of the success or failure considerable opportunity to determine what the
of UNCLOS III in bringing forth a new comprehensive new state-federal relationship would include. It is
treaty. The principal changes with regard to the essential that congressional action on issues such
legal regimes surrounding minerals that become as the extension of the territorial width be taken
apparent from a review of the Revised Single with a view to the legal relationships that will
Negotiating Text are the concept of a twelve-mile necessarily change. There will be a need to amend
territorial sea, an exclusive economic zone, a regime several existing laws and not simply to adopt an
for the deep seabeds, a clearer and geographically extended territorial sea.
expanded definition of the outer edge of the conti- Should the territorial sea of the United States
nental shelf, proposed archipelagic waters, and be changed from three to twelve miles, what will
additional rules for determining baselines. While this mean in terms of the state-federal relationships
all of these topics have possible implications for that have been developed over the past three decades
changes in state-federal relationships, I will concen- through court decisions and legislative actions?
trate on the issue of a twelve-mile territorial sea. Ownership and jurisdiction questions come to mind
It should be pointed out that the United States immediately. Where would these coastal boundaries
government can reject or adopt for itself the changes be, and will the coastal states have jurisdiction
in international law. Only after the United States in the three- to twelve-mile belt of newly created
government has adopted changes in the law of the territory subject to United States sovereignty?. Will
sea is it necessary to consider state-federal the coastal states or the federal government "own"
relationships. For instance, should the twelve-mile the submerged lands and resources of the superjacent
territorial sea suggestion be adopted by UNCLOS III waters?
and should the United States sign and ratify such a Initially, it should be recognized that the legal
convention, the United States government would be character of these lands will change from that of
in a position to adopt a new width of twelve miles sovereign rights to explore and exploit the natural
as its territorial sea. On the other hand, the federal resources associated with the regime of the con-
government might wish to maintain the present three- tinental shelf to lands subject to sovereignty
mile territorial sea. It is presumed that should a associated with the regime of the territorial sea. The

water column and its resources will change from high as California, which came into the union after
seas with concurrent contiguous zone sovereign its formation have described in their state consti-
rights to waters having sovereign character normally tutions their seaward boundaries as extending three
associated with the territorial sea. miles from shore, and these boundaries were ratified
When the United States was formed as a by Congress in the enabling acts that adn-dtted the
sovereign nation, the concept of a territorial sea had states into the union. 16 Some of the original thirteen
not crystallized as a principle of international law.' 3 states had formulated statutes declaring their
As a result, neither the individual states' nor the boundaries to be coextensive with the breadth of the
federal government's boundaries extended beyond territorial sea. 17 These had never been ratified by
the low water mark along our coast. The origins of Congress but were among the boundaries the courts
the United States territorial sea can be traced to had presumed to be legitimate for jurisdictional
correspondence in 1793 between the then Secretary purposes. The states exercised jurisdiction, at least
of State Thomas Jefferson and the ambassadors of for police power functions, within these declared
Great Britain and France concerning this nation's boundaries.18 With the passage of the Submerged
neutrality in the war between the other two powers. Lands Act in 1953, Congress specifically authorized
These letters discussed authorizations by the any states which had not established boundaries of
president of officers to exercise "territorial protec- three miles seaward of shore to do so. It should be
tion" a certain distance from our seashores. Mr. Jef- recalled that this act was for the primary purpose of
ferson's letter to Mr. G. Hammond 'on November 8, quitclaiming title of submerged land to the coastal
1793, stated that a provisional distance of three states, and it was not specifically to establish state
geographical miles or one marine league from the boundaries. The act' s purposes were stated in its title:
seashore was being instructed for purposes of "terri-
torial protection." 14 No formal presidential proclama- To confirm and establish the titles of the states to lands
tion or congressional statute ever specifically beneath navigable waters within state boundaries and to the
natural resources within such lands and waters, to provide
pronounced that the United States was adopting a for the use and control of said lands and resources, and to
territorial sea with a width of three miles. There confirm the jurisdiction and control of the united States
over the natural resources of the seabed of the Continental
have been, however, numerous allusions in congres- Shelf seaward of state boundaries. 19
sional statutes to the authority that may be exer-
cised by the United States in a territorial zone of The fact that many of the states established their
three mdles. As early as 1794, Congress provided (in own boundaries and these were acquiesced in by con-
a statute dealing primarily with United States citizens gressional action and recognized by the courts
being required to abstain from assisting foreign suggests that there are no limitations on states to
powers in their military efforts) "that the district extend their seaward boundaries to a distance of
courts shall take cognizance of complaints by whom- twelve n-dies' should this distance be adopted by the
ever instituted, in cases of captures made within the United States as the extent of its territorial sea.
waters of the United States, or within a marine league It had been customary practice for the states to exer-
of the coasts or shores thereof." Is it is a fact that the cise their jurisdiction for police power functions
United States has for quite some time claimed and within such boundaries, and there seem to be no
exercised sovereignty over this territorial sea. While constitutional limitations on the separate states
the seaward claims of the United States and other which prohibit them from exercising their sovereignty
nations were being acquiesced in and developing into by extending their own boundaries. However,
customary international law, it is difficult to deter- Congress is vested with the constitutional power
mine a precise moment when the territorial sea to dispose of public property under Article IV, Sec. 3,
was established as three miles. Much of the dis- Cl. 2, which states:
cussion on this area was couched in terms of the
marginal sea and not in terms of the territorial sea. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
The seaward boundaries of the separate states needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
have also had what might be described as a less than Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be construed as to Prejudice any Claims of
clear definition of their location. Some states, such the United States, or of any particular State.

This speaks to Congress's power to determine owner- sea, and there was no suggestion that this had been
ship of such lands, but does not seem to be control- improper. The question of establishing the outer
ling on the issue of boundary. placement within the extent of state boundaries was addressed as dictum
territorial sea. The states are limited in extending in Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240 (1891).
boundaries beyond those which have been estab- There the Supreme Court clearly stated, "Within what
lished as the outer boundaries of the U.S., as this are generally recognized as the territorial limits of
would presume upon the federal. government's states by the law of nations, a state can define its
authority in the area of international relations. boundaries on the sea and the boundaries of its
A question might be raised as to whether or not counties."23 It could be suggested that the large and
the Submerged Lands Act would be interpreted by continuous body of case decisions on states'
the courts as a limitation on the states' ability to boundaries extending beyond low-water mark and
extend their own boundaries to the outer extent of the states' legitimate exercise of their police power
a newly established territorial sea. While the act in this offshore territory was what prompted the Court
provides a. definition for boundaries, it should be to base its decision in the California case on the
pointed out that this was for the purposes of the novel development of paramount rights. Historically,
act. In that act the following definition is found: the seaward boundaries of the states' sovereignty
The term "boundaries" includes the seaward boundaries of ahave been considered to be coextensive with the
State or its boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico or any of the seaward boundaries of the sovereignty of the United
Great Lakes as they existed at the time such state became aStates, and it has been difficult to perceive a time
member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by the when this would not be the case. To resolve the
Congress, or as extended or confirmed pursuant to section
1312 of this title but in no event shall the term "boundaries" questions previously mentioned that might arise
or the term "lands beneath navigable waters" be interpreted as a state-federal dispute, any extension of the United
as extending from the coast line more than three geographical States territorial sea should be accompanied by a
miles into the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, or more
. 20 congressional act which clarifies the issues.
than three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico.
The question of ownership of the land between.
Thus it may be possible to limit a state's boundary three and twelve miles, in the event of an extension
for ownership of submerged land to three miles, while -of the territorial seas, appears to be a more clearly
boundary for sovereignty purposes might be placed at settled issue, although some legal argument might
twelve miles. The Supreme Court has never rendered ensue. As a result of the California, Texas, and
a decision on the states' rights to unilaterally declare Louisiana cases, 24 the Supreme Court has stated that
their boundaries to,be coextensive with the outer the federal government has paramount rights to the
boundaries of the territorial sea where state marginal sea. These paramount rights would pre-
boundaries do not extend that far. However, some surnably preclude the states from claiming ownership
clue to a possible decision on this point may be of the submerged lands beneath a new breadth
found in the 1947 California case .21 While the court of territorial sea. If a state made a claim to the
clearly stated that, as a result of the paramount ownership of these submerged lands, the principle of
rights of the federal government in the territorial sea, stare decisis would come into play in that future
California was not the owner of the submerged lands decisions of the courts would rely heavily upon these
within the territorial sea, it separated this decision prior Supreme Court cases. While the principle of
from a decision on the existence of state boundaries. stare decisis was enunciated in the Maine case 25 as
The court said, "Conceding that the state has been one of the principal reasons for finding that the
authorized to exercise local police power functions Atlantic Coast states did not have ownership of the
in the part of the marginal belt within its declared submerged lands beyond three miles, it is possible
boundaries, these do not detract from the Federal that the Supreme Court could reevaluate the positions
Governments paramount rights in and power over of the states and the federal government. Certainly
this area. ,22 From this and other references in this there has been much legal criticism of the California
case it seems clear that the court believed that the case, and perhaps the Court could adopt one of the
states had established boundaries in the territorial alternative positions that have been suggested. For

instance, the Court could take the position that and not ownership in the pr Ioperty sense. 27 The Court
Justice Frankfurter adopted in his dissent on the looked beyond the clear meaning of the word "owner-
26
California case, that the principle of sovereignty ship." The rationale that the Court gave was that fish
includes both dominion (property and ownership) could not be owned (in the property sense) by the
and imperium (political sovereignty), and conse- state as long as they were wild things and had not
quently the federal government's paramount rights been reduced to possession. The Court stated that
should be considered in the nature of the imperium Congress could only have meant the term "owner-
with the dominion being reserved to the states. In ship" to describe the interests that a state has in
the CaliforAia case, the Supreme Court did not use controlling, managing, and regulating the fish while
28
terms normally associated with property, such as they are within that state's jurisdiction.
ownership or fee simple, but rather based its decision If the United States were to adopt a twelve-mile
on the paramount rights it felt the United States territorial sea, the boundaries of the states were deter-
possessed. A strong argument for stare decisis to be mined to extend to twelve miles, and the ownership
used is that a great many expectations (particularly of the submerged lands were determined to belong
economic) have developed over the past twenty-five to the federal government, then the area would be
years. It could be pointed out that significant ex- federal lands within a state. Since only sovereign
pectations had developed prior to the California case rights to these lands are being claimed at present
that did not appear to carry much weight in that through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,
decision. there is a serious question as to whether this act
The argument that the Submerged Lands Act would continue to be the operative legislation for
should be read as a congressional pronouncement the new territorial sea area. If not, would some
that the states should have ownership of the sub- other existing federal act be effective? The Federal
merged lands within the territorial sea should it be Mineral Lands ACt29 is the present legislation which
enlarged is a tenuous argument. However, it should controls mineral leasing and production on federal
not be discounted out of hand. Even though the lands within the boundaries of the several states.
act says specifically that the states have ownership This would mean a considerable redistribution of
out to a maximum distance of three miles, it is clear the revenues from the mineral production on these
from the legislative history that Congress intended federal lands. All of the revenues from the pro-
to return to the states that which they and almost duction of oil and gas and other minerals under
all legal observers at the time thought they originally the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act are placed
owned - those lands which were within the marginal in the federal treasury. Under the Federal Mineral
sea. Clearly, what they thought they owned had to be Leasing Act, the state in which the federal lands
measured in terms of what the marginal sea had been are located receives fifty percent of the generated
considered to be to that time. On the other hand, revenues.
perhaps Congress intended that the states' bounda-
ries and ownership of the submerged lands within State-State Relationships
the territorial sea should always be recognized.
Before the question of legislative intent could While jurisdictions for change in state-state
be looked to, the clear meaning rule would have to relationships will not occur with great frequency
be overcome. The act clearly states that the distance from changes in ocean law, these state-state issues
of state ownership is three miles. Terminology that may be significant when they -result from federal
is on its face quite specific and clear has in the legislation. The 1976 Amendments to the Coastal
past been held by the Supreme Court to have a Zone Management Act established a Coastal Energy
different meaning. In Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Impact Program. 30 This program, established under
97 S.Ct. 1740 (1977), a recent case interpreting Section 308 of the act, is designed to provide federal
language in the Submerged Lands Act, the Court financial assistance to coastal states on which there
interpreted "ownership" of natural resources (speci- may be impacts from development and production
fically fish) in the water column to mean jurisdiction of minerals (particularly oil and gas) from the outer

continental shelf. This is a further example of the Pacific Coast states, the majority of Atlantic Coast
increasing recognition of the interrelationships and Gulf Coast states are disputing their lateral
between state and federal interests in events and seaward boundaries; perhaps the most significant
programs beyond state jurisdiction but in proximity differences are between Louisiana and Mississippi.
to the states. While the program has several contro- The states which have these disputes may be con-
versial elements, the one I feel has the most sig- cerned that decisions that are made regarding these
nificance in terms of ocean law affecting state- extensions of lateral seaward boundaries may
state relations is the establishment of lateral prejudice or determine their claims to lateral seaward
seaward boundaries of the coastal states. boundaries in the future even though these delimi-
The financial assistance available to the states tations are only for purposes of this act.
includes loans, loan guarantees, and formula grants. Not only do state-state disputes on these ex-
The formula grants are to be based on a series of tended seaward boundaries exist, but at present there
factors, including the amount of acreage leased exists a dispute regarding the four lateral boundaries
and the amount of oil and gas production from between the United States and Canada. In making
those areas of the outer continental shelf adjacent decisions on extended lateral seaward boundaries,
to a state. For purposes of the act, acreage is the associate administrator should bear in mind that
adjacent to a particular state if such acreage on the the methods, mechanisms, and procedures he uses
outer continental shelf lies on that state's side of may be carefully watched by Canada for future
its extended lateral seaward boundaries. The act reference in U.S.-Canada negotiations over lateral
provides that the extended lateral seaward bounda- boundaries on the continental shelf. These decisions
ries should be determined as follows: of the associate administrator are only domestic
(i) If lateral seaward boundaries have been clearly defined or matters for the limited purposes of the act. However,
fixed by an interstate compact, agreement, or judicial decision Canada may still insist on referring to them should
(if entered into, agreed to, or issued before the date of the the associate administrator's decisions on methods
enactment of this paragraph), such boundaries shall be or procedures support their claims.
extended on the basis of the principles of delimitation used Most of the issues regarding extended lateral
to so define or fix them in such compact agreement, or
decision. seaward boundaries may have to be resolved by the
(ii) If no lateral seaward boundaries, or any portion thereof, courts. In the meantime, the associate administrator
have been clearly defined or fixed by an interstate compact, may or may not use the same principles of law
agreement, or judicial decision, lateral seaward boundaries
shall be determined according to the applicable principles that the courts ultimately would use in deciding
of law, including the principles of the Convention on the these boundaries. For purposes of the act, the lateral
Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, and extended on the seaward boundaries which had been fixed by inter-
basis of such principles. state compact, agreement, or judicial decision prior
(iii) If after the date of enactment of this paragraph, two or
more coastal states enter into or amend an interstate compact to an act would have such boundaries extended on
or agreement in order to clearly define or fix lateral seaward the basis of the principles of delimitation used to
boundaries, such boundaries shall thereafter be deter- define them in such compact, agreement, or decision.
mined on the basis of the principles of delimitation used
to define or fix them in such compact or agreement. 31 There are some instances where states have
agreed to a lateral seaward boundary, but Congress
If there is a dispute between states as a result has not specifically consented to the agreement.
of conflicting claims regarding their lateral seaward Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution states,
boundaries, the portion of a state's grant which is "No State shall, without the consent of Congress
dependent on acreage and production in the disputed ... enter into any agreement or compact with another
area will be impounded until the delimitation line is State, or with a foreign power." A number of states,
established. If the states have not agreed on their such as Rhode Island and New York, have agreements
lateral seaward boundaries, then the associate which have been explicitly approved by Congress,
administrator will make a delineation of these and there should be no question on these boundaries.
boundaries for purposes of this act only. While there However, as Justice Field stated in Virginia v. Ten-
appear to be no lateral boundary disputes between nessee, 148 U.S. 508, "Compacts and agreements

might then very properly apply to such as regarded and relative position of the parties and the objects
what might be deemed mere private rights of which they had in view (Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202
sovereignty, such as questions of boundaries." 32 U.S. 923). In addition, where there are conflicting
Justice Field's opinion that certain agreements titles, the elder shall be preferred (Rhode Island v.
between states would not need the consent of Maine, 12 Pet. 658). Also, between the states of the
Congress because they would not concern the United Union, long acquiescence in the assertion of a
States has led some state courts to uphold agree- particular boundary and the exercise of don-dnion
ments with other states which did not have the and sovereignty over the territory within it should
consent of Congress. The states of New Jersey and be accepted as conclusive.
Delaware provide an example of two states with an Article 12 of the Convention on the Territorial
agreement that was never explicitly approved by Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which is specified as
Congress. However, it may be possible for states in an applicable principle in the act, states that:
this position to demonstrate a tacit approval by Where the'courts of two states are opposite or adjacent to
Congress. In the Virginia v. Tennessee case it was each other neither of the two states is entitled, failing
held that the consent of Congress was to be implied agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its
from congressional recognition of the two states for territorial sea beyond the medium line every poin't of which is
judicial and revenue purposes. Where a state stood equidistant from the nearest points on the borderline from
which the breadth -of the territorial sea of each of the two
as a party to such an agreement which does not states is measured. The provision of this paragraph shall
have the approval of Congress and now wishes to not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of
make a claim different from that provided in the historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the
territorial seas of the two states in a way which is at
agreement, it is unclear whether the associate variance with this provision. 33
administrator would or would not extend the lateral
seaward boundaries according to that agreement. In drafting this provision, the International Law
For purposes of the act, the lateral seaward Commission decided that the most equitable way was
boundaries of the states which have failed to reach to draw the bounds by application of the principle
an agreement about these boundaries are to have of equidistance from the nearest point on the base-
them decided on the basis of applicable principles line from which the breadth of the territorial sea of
of law, including the Convention on the Territorial each country is measured. The Supreme Court elected
Sea and Contiguous Zones. One question which to use the equidistant principle in Texas v. Louisiana,
should be raised is whether or not the lateral 96 S-Ct. 2155 (1976), where the lateral seaward
seaward boundaries that may be established within boundary dispute between those states was settled.
the territorial sea would have to be extended in a The court also pointed out that the jetties of both
straight line beyond the territorial sea. Whether states should be considered as part of the baselines.
concepts that have been developed for delineation The CEIP guidelines direct the associate admini-
of lateral boundaries on the continental shelf should strator, when necessary to delimit boundary lines,
be used as well appears to be unclear. to use the baseline that the U.S. measures its terri-
In determining a boundary line between states, torial sea as shown on National Ocean Survey charts
the nature and history of the controversy with when the equidistant method is chosen.@'
respect to the colonial grants or orders relied on as The simplest way to determine the boundaries
establishing the bounds must be considered (Vermont would be to extend the land boundary out to sea.
v. New Hampshire, 53 S. St. 708). All types of land This method works quite well for areas where the
claims and land grants as well as admission to the coastline Is relatively straight and where the land
Union documents could be considered in solving boundary between the two states reaches the shore
this type of boundary. In the construction of at right angles. There are a few places in this country
statutes, as in the construction of deeds; the where those conditions are met; however, if they are
cardinal rule is to effectuate, if possible, the entire not present, the resulting division could be very
intention of the grantor; and, in ascertaining that inequitable. Another method is to use a line perpen-
intention, regard must be given to the situation dicular to the general direction of the coast This

method was used in the 1909 arbitration award in the lengths of the coastlines.40 This still leaves questions
dispute between Sweden and Norway. 35 as to the amount of concavity, the specific geological
In looking at the principles that have been conditions, and which part of a nation's coastline
developed in international law relating to the delimi- should be used in determining the relative lengths.
tation of lateral seaward boundaries of the conti- Which of the applicable rules of law will be
nental shelf, attention should be focused initially given the greatest amount of weight by the associate
on the Convention on the Continental Shelf. The administrator in delineating the extended lateral
Convention provides: seaward boundaries will not be clear for some time.
Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the Since the associate administrator's decisions will be
territories of two adjacent states, the boundary of the substantive and therefore discretionary, any decision
continental shelf shall be determined by agreement between he makes will not be subject to review by the courts
diem. In the absence of agreement, and unless another
boundary line is justified by special circumstances, the unless it is clearly arbitrary or capricious.
boundary shall be determined by application of the principle In summary, there are numerous changes in
of equidistance from the nearest points of the baselines ocean law that have far-reaching effects. The trend
from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each state
is measured. 36 to increase state participation in federal programs
beyond state boundaries is likely to continue. Where
The central question seems to be whether or not to implications for changes in state-federal relation-
use the equidistance principle or to recognize the ships result from changes in law of the sea, it will
equity issues which might be raised as a result of be necessary for Congress to give consideration to
special circumstances. A prior draft of this con- possible effects on boundaries, jurisdiction, and
vention article by the International Law Comn-dssion ownership as separate but interrelated issues.
had stated that "Such boundaries should be fixed by Finally, while state-state relationship questions will
agreement among the states concerned. It is not not arise as often as state-federal issues, these issues,
feasible to lay down any general rule which states such as lateral seaward boundaries, should be given
should follow; and it is not unlikely that difficulties more careful attention when federal legislation is
may arise."3' It was also suggested in that earlier passed.
draft that, failing agreement, "States should be
under an obligation to submit to arbitration ex aequo
et bono."38 A reading of the legislative history of the Notes
convention suggests that the inclusion of the general I . S. 9, 95th Cong., lst Sess. Sec. 201 ("Sec.2(f)) (1977).
principle of equidistance left much room for the 2. Id., Sec. 201 ("Sec. 2 (1)).
consideration of equity resulting from special cir- 3. Id., Sec. 202 ("Sec. 3).
cumstances. 4. Id., Sec. 204 ("Se .c. S(a) (2)).
The International Court of Justice, in the North
39 S. Id., Sec. 205 (b) ("Sec. 8(@ (1)).
Sea Continental Shelf case, stressed the equity 6. Id., Sec. 208 ("Sec. 18(a) (2)).
principle, even though it based its decision on the
principle that states should be entitled to the natural 7. Id., Sec. 208 ("Sec. 18(c)).
prolongation on the continental shelf of their land B. Id., Sec. 208 ("Sec. 19(a)).
territory. The I.C.J. stated that the whole concept 9. Id., Sec. 208 ("Sec. 19(d)).
of a state's rights to the continental shelf are a 10. Id., Sec. 208 ("Sec. 25(a) (1)),
direct result of its sovereignty over the land and 11. Id., sec. 208 ("Sec. 26(b) (2)).
that the continental shelf is merely an extension of 12. Revised Single Negotiating Text, A/Conf. 62/WP.8/Rev.1,
this land domain. The I.C.J. did identify three May 6, 1976.
criteria which should be taken into account in 13. The Supreme Court has stated that "At the time this country
determining this natural prolongation. These criteria won its independence from England there was no settled
international custom or understanding among nations that
which seem to be equitable criteria, include: (1) the each nation owned a three-mile water belt along its
relative concavity of the coastline; (2) the geology borders." United States v. California. 332 U.S. 19 (1947), p. 32.
and geomorphology of the area; and (3) the relative 14. If. Ex. Doc. No. 324, 42nd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1872) 553-554.

15. 3rd Cong., I st Sess., Ch. 50 (17 94), 38 1.
16. Cal. Const. 1849, Art. XII, Sec. I; Enabling Act, 9 Stat 452.
17. Massachusetts had established such a boundary in 1859
(see Stat 1859, c. 289, as amended, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.
c.1, Sec. 3). Other states followed the same process.
(R.I., Gen. Stat 1872, c. 1, Sec. 1), (N.J. Stat Ann. Title 40,
Sec. 18-5), (N.H. Laws 190 1, c. I IS), (Acts 1916, p. 29, Ga.
Code Ann. Sec. 15-101).
18. Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240 (1891); The Abby
Dodge, 223 U.S. 166 (1912); Skiriotes v. State of Florida 313
U.S. 69 (1941).
19. Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29 (1953).
20. Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29 (1953), 43 U.S.C. 1301 (b).
21. United States v. California 332 U.S. 19 (1947).
22. Id., p. 36.
23. Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240 (1891), 11 S.Ct 559
at 564.

24. United States v. California 332 U.S. 19 (1947); United States
v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707 (1950); and United States v. Louisiana
339 U.S. 699 (1950).
25. United States v. Maine, 403 U.S. 949 (1975).
26. United States v. California 332 U.S. 19 (1947), pp. 41-46.
27. Douglas v. Seacoast Products, 97 S.Ct 1740 (1977), p. 1753.
28. Id.

29. Federal Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. 191.
30. Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, Sec. 308, Pub.L.
94-370, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess.
31. Id., Sec. 308 (b) (3) (B).
32. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S., 508, p. 511.
33. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, Art
12(l), Ap. 29, 1958, U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L. 52.
34. 42 Fed. Reg. 1184 (1977).
35. 119511 I.L.C. Yearbook (1)287, Para. 122.
36. Convention on the Continental Shelf, Art.6(2), Ap. 29, 1958,
U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 13/L.55.
37. [1951] I.L.C. Yearbook (11) 143.

38. Id.
39. North Sea Continental Shelf Case (1969) I.C.J. 3.
40. Id., p. 5 1.

Jurisdictional Issues in Marine Transportation

Joseph Bockrath

Assistant Professor of Law, Law Center,. Louisiana State University

The jurisdictional issues involved in marine The Commerce Clause of the United States Con-
transportation are clouded by two factors: the stitution, from which the great majority of federal
inherent difficulty of state-federal relations law in an regulatory law comes, was not intended to foreclose
historically federal area now in conflict with the state participation in the regulation of interstate
police power concerns of states seeking to protect commerce. This is evident from the rejection by the
fragile resources, and the fact that transportation framers of the Constitution of an earlier proposal
itself also cuts across the fields of fisheries, oil which read:
and gas, and pollution, each of which has distinct The United States and Congress assembled shall have the
concerns. Factual distinctions such as the location sole and exclusive right and power of regulating trade in
of the vessel within or without the territorial limits, the states, as well as with foreign nations, as with each other.
the citizenship of parties involved, and the activities Huron made it clear that the Constitution was never
to be regulated all contribute to the conclusion that intended to cut the states off from legislating on all
generality is of modest value. subjects relating to health, life, and safety of their
As far back as 1917 the Supreme Court of the citizens, since these are the major reasons for the
United States, in Southern Pacific v. Jensen, observed existence of state governments, even though such
that it would be difficult if not impossible to define legislation might indirectly affect the commerce of
with exactness just how far maritime law may be the country. A state may not, however, impose a
changed, modified, or affected by state legislation. burden which materially affects interstate commerce
Nearly fifty years later in Huron Portland Cement v. in an area where uniformity of regulation is necessary
City of Detroit, the Supreme Court recognized the because of the nature of the subject matter, or where
nght of states to impose regulations over matters of the field has actually been preempted by a federal
maritime transportation which are not preempted by law.
federal law. Attempting to pinpoint the basic limita- The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is an
tion of local legislative power, the court said that: example of an expressly nonpreemptive federal
The controlling principles have been reiterated over the years statute and at least fourteen states have adopted
in a host of this courts decisions. Evenhanded local regula- legislation similar to or more stringent than the
tion to effectuate legitimate local interests is valid unless provisions of the federal law. The Florida statute
preempted by federal action. was examined in the Askew case, where a district
Unfortunately, stating the terms of federal pre- court ruled that the Florida act constituted an in-
emption has always been an easier task than identify- trusion into an exclusive area of federal substantive
ing actual cases of it. Preemption, though Huron may marine regulation. The Supreme Court, however,
be becoming dated, would seem to require a congres- found that the liability provisions of the Florida
sional intent to occupy a field, plus a field the nature statute fit into the waiver of exclusive federal control
of which is best suited for nationally uniform regu- found in the FWPCA, noting specifically that the
lation. federal act dealt only with federal cleanup costs

while the Florida statute dealt with state costs and is limited to that area considered by the United States
damages to state and private interests. Not resolved to be within its territory. The court, in Portland Pipe
in Askew were questions dealing with state require- Line, went on to add that their attention had not been
ments with respect to shipboard equipment or to bans called to any provision of a treaty, act of Congress,
on ship movement or traffic through Florida waters. or decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
After the Askew case, in the Portland Pipe Line Cor- limiting territorial jurisdiction of the United States
poration case, the Maine statute was upheld in the to tidewaters within three miles of the coast. Unfortu-
face of a multifaceted attack, including one based on nately, this issue was not raised on appeal and the
the proposition that the act's license fee of one-half validity of Portland Pipe Line on this point may be
cent per barrel on oil transferred over water was an open to dispute.
impost and therefore violated the IMPOTt-Export Adding to the questions of where are questions
Clause of the federal Constitution. This difficulty of who; a 1970 California case concluded that when
was finessed by a finding that the fee was imposed a state's action did not conflict with federal legisla-
on the activity of off-loading the Oil, rather than tion, the sovereign authority of the state over the
on the oil itself. conduct of its citizens on the high seas is analogous
Due in large part to the tremendous cargoes to the sovereign authority of the United States over
carried by modern oil tankers, a state may find it its citizens in like circumstances. This year, the case
necessary to endeavor to regulate the scope of mari- of State v. Bundrant while rendered perhaps less
time transportation even though those activities take than definitive by the fact that fisheries were involved
place beyond the territorial limits of the state. Such and by the later passage of the Fishery Conservation
regulation or influence upon regulation may be and Management Act, seems to have eliminated state
indirect or direct. citizenship as a requirement for the extraterritorial
States may indirectly affect activities involving application of state law.
maritime activities occurring beyond their territorial The law of pilotage has traditionally been a sub-
limits through their input into a variety of federal ject of state regulation. Federal law provides that:
statutes which apply beyond three miles, For Until further provision is made by Congress, all pilots in the
example, the FWPCA is expressly not preemptive bays, rivers, harbors, or ports of the United States shall
and may, in many circumstances, require that federal continue to be regulated in conformity with the existing laws
permit-seekers also obtain state certification. The of the states respectively wherein such a pilot may be, or
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act through its appli- with such laws as the states may respectively enact for the
cation of state law on off shore structures, the Fish purpose.
and Wildlife Coordination Act which requires con- It was held as early as 1851 that this statute was
sultation with state agencies, the veto provisions constitutional, since the mere granting of commerce
of the Deepwater Ports Act, the National Environ- power to Congress did not prohibit the states from
mental Policy Act through state input into the passing laws to regulate pilotage, and that since com-
environmental impact statement process, and the merce includes a variety of subjects, there maybe need
Coastal Zone Management Act through its con- for a uniform rule for some situations and a different
sistency requirements, all provide a measure of state rule in different localities for others. it should be
input into activities occurring beyond their bound- noted that this argument was resurrected in the
aries. ARCO case to which our attention will be turned in
A much more direct approach was taken in th6 a moment.
Maine statute analyzed in the Portland Pipe Line case. It is significant to recognize though that the
This statute purported to extend Maine's jurisdic- pilotage statute is merely a recognition of the con-
tional control to twelve miles and the Maine Supreme current power of states in the area until Congress
Court upheld its application against the challenge chooses to act. For example, the federal government
that it was inconsistent with national treaties. In a has now preempted the licensing of the pilots serving
rather unsatisfactory opinion the court said that on vessels authorized to engage in the coastwise
the freedom of the state of Maine to act in this area trade. The Rhode island statute involved in the

recent case of Warner v. Dunlap, requiring each state involvement in virtually all water-related regu-
foreign vessel and American vessel under register for latory programs, including the Coastal Zone Manage-
foreign trade to take on a Rhode Island pilot when ment Act. Citing a variety of other acts with similar
traversing Block Island Sound, is consistent, since thrust, the court observed that the federal statutes
Block Island Sound was held to be a bay within the mentioned explicitly invited state participation, while
meaning of the federal statute. As well, Rhode Island the Port and Waterways Safety Act did not invite
could regulate the piloting activities of Connecticut- such participation or sharing of regulatory authority.
licensed pilots traversing the waters of Block Island ARCO is now on appeal and numerous states
Sound even though the routes utilized in piloting have involved themselves in the litigation. Their
those vessels were more than three miles from the contentions are of major interest. The states disavow
Rhode Island shore. it should also be noted that the any interest or desire to compete with the Coast Guard
Wamer case would also seem to hold clearly that in regulating vessel safety and design and traffic
the issue of the state's territorial limits is distinct control, but stress that states have a vital interest
from that of its right to control navigation. Thus, in protecting their freedom to make policy choices
in the pilotage situation, states have been permitted where substantial economic, social, and environ-
to assert the regulations as much as thirty or even mental policy issues arise.
fifty miles from their borders. The states point out specifically that the tanker
No discussion of state jurisdiction over marine law does not prohibit the entry of supertankers into
transportation could be complete without reference all state waters and carefully limits the prohibition
to the case of Dixie Lee Ray v. Atlantic Richfield which to the ecologically sensitive area of Puget Sound.
is now pending in the Supreme Court of the United Stress on the uniqueness of the area is an interesting
States. argument since the appellant' s brief also argues that
The Washington statute involved in the Atlantic every estuary. is unique. If this means that every
Richfield case regulates oil tankers operating in Puget state could treat its estuaries differently, or even
Sound. The tanker law requires any tanker in excess that a single state could treat different estuaries
of 50,000 dwt to employ a locally licensed pilot and within it differently, the resulting Balkanization
absolutely prohibits supertankers, that is those would seem to be extreme,
larger than 125,000 dwt. Another section of the act The appellants in ARCO also point out that the
Proscribes minimum design specifications including exclusion of larger tankers from ecologically sensitive
shaft horsepower, twin screws, double bottoms, and areas is in furtherance of the intent and policy of
twin radars for tankers between 40,000 and 125,000 Congress in enacting the Deepwater Ports Act to
tons, but waives these design specifications for encourage the construction of deepwater ports for
tankers accompanied by an appropriate complement transferring oil well offshore and to keep tankers
of tugboats. The district court was persuaded that the away from crowded inshore ports where the risk of
Federal Port and Waterways Safety Act had preempted environmental damage is greatest.
the field by establishing a comprehensive federal The appellants also insist that the tanker law is
scheme for regulating the operation, traffic routes, not one which imposes design or equipment safety
pilotage, and safety designs specifications of tankers. standards on ships because the act does allow entry
The court said that: into the port with tug escort- assistance as an alter-
Balkanization of regulatory authority over the most interstate, native.
even international, of transportation systems is foreclosed by The states appealing the district court decision
the national policy embodied in the Port and waterways safety urge that the tanker law is not one aimed at pro-
Act tecting local economic interest, nor does it impose
Thus, the court concluded that the tanker law had undue burdens on interstate commerce dispropor-
been preempted. The court recognized that coopera- tionate to the strong state interest in protecting
tive federalism had been a congressional policy for unique marine environments. They further urge that:
designing a United States environmental policy and Every port, harbor. bay, and estuary throughout the world is
that this policy of cooperative federalism had ensured unique in terms of its physical and ecological carrying

capacity. A state police power regulation that imposes reason- federal scheme for regulating oil tankers and author-
able limits to protect carrying capacity, even whe Ire incidental ized the Coast Guard to require tug escorts and to
burdens on commerce result is not invalid.
restrict or even exclude tankers from Puget Sound
While the district court emphasized that the under adverse or hazardous conditions. The fact is,
Port and Waterways Safety Act, unlike most other however, that the Coast Guard has not yet acted to
water-related federal statutes, does not invite state regulate these aspects of oil tanker operations, but
participation, the appellants argue that neither is it the parties disagree in the result of such inaction.
expressly preemptive. Since the exercise of federal The interesting contention that the consistency
supremacy is not lightly to be presumed, and because provisions of CZMA require that federal agencies act
the state interests are strong, the state argues that consistently with the Washington tanker law, which
the Port and Waterways Safety Act is not preemptive at least allegedly was incorporated in Washington's
of Washington tanker law. approved coastal zone management plan, received
It is interesting to note that the Port and Water- modest consideration from the district court. Con-
ways Safety Act contains only one reference to state ceding that the tanker law is "related" to the approved
standards and it says. that: coastal management plan, the court declined to rule
Nothing in this Chapter supplants or modifies any treaty or that this somehow waived federal preemption of the
federal statute or authority granted thereunder, nor does it area. Even assuming that the tanker law was a legi-
prevent a state or political subdivision thereof from pro- timate factor in Washington's approved coastal
scribing for structures only higher safety equipment require-
ments or safety standards than those which may be proscribed management plan, it does seem difficult to jump
pursuant to this Chapter. from that to the conclusion that the area is no longer
ARCO's position is that since the federal statute was preempted , if in fact it ever was.
designed for the prevention of damage to vessels, The foregoing makes clear that the combination
bridges, . and other stuctures, the Savings Clause for of legal, factual, geographical, and emotional factors
more stringent state standards is "for structures involved in the discussion of state jurisdiction over
only" since that is the language utilized in the clause, marine transportation virtually precludes a cogent
and that this constitutes therefore an express federal statement of widely applicable principles. From a
preemption of state regulation over vessels. policy perspective on a visceral level, the arguments
While it may be an overstatement to say that for state authority are attractive, as no one can
this preemption is clear, the states would seem to be dispute the unique character of most local resources
equally guilty in saying that: or the relative competence of state officers to handle
them.
The plain meaning of this Savings Clause is to allow the on the other hand, we are one country and it
States to impose higher or more stringent safety equipment
requirements or safety standards in a relatively narrow field, is hard to argue with the proposition that few enter-
for structures only, than any existing Coast Guard regulations prises are more int6rstate in nature than shipping.
on the same subject. Fears of conflicting regulations are very real.
The Savings Clause does not, continues the state Law is a reflection of policy and the state of the
argument, prevent the states from exercising their law in this area reflects the absence of such a
traditional regulatory authority over vessel opera- national policy. Congress' failure to enact or clearly
tions in harbors, bays, and inland waters where the repudiate a national oil spill liability act is indicative.
Coast Guard has not yet acted to regulate. Constitutional language may need breadth, but
The states in ARCO also argue that if Congress federal statutescould be explicit when it comes to
had intended a federal preemption and a complete the question of state authority. Until they are, one
ouster of state regulatory authority it would have can expect states to continue to fill what they
expressed intention in the same kind of unequivocal perceive as a vacuum in the laws protecting their
terms that are used in statutes such as the Clean Air coastal resources.
Amendments of 1970.
The District Court view- was that the Port and
Waterways Safety Act established a comprehensive

Getting into Deep Water: Emerging Environmental
Regimes and Jurisdictional Conflicts of the
Coastal Belt

Robert E. Lutz

Visiting Associate Professor, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law,
Sacramento, California

The title of this paper suggests some predictive one goes oceanward from land, jurisdictions become
capability on my part. Anyone attempting predictions, more and more undefined and dynamic. Second, as
however, should be cautioned by something the one returns to shore and proceeds landward, juris-
famous economist Kenneth Boulding once said: If. dictional boundaries become better defined, but
you predict the state of affairs for one hundred years overlap and change frequently.
and are 99 percent correct for each year, you will Jurisdiction has to do with the legal right to
only be 36 percent correct when the hundred years assert authority over an area, resource, or activity.
has passed.' Since that is hardly a winning average, Usually pertaining to government's authority, the
I will not attempt to launch a career as a sooth- term has two different applications. One indicates
sayer in this forum. Rather, after defining some the authority of a certain level of government to assert
terms, I will cite and discuss with current examples control over fesources, a defined area (territory), or
some trends in certain areas of coastal belt environ- activity. The second aspect has to do with the com-
mental regulation. petence of a certain unit or units of a level of govern-
Some definition of terms is necessary to develop ment to exercise authority over the resource, area, or
a framework for a meaningful discussion. Specific- activity. In this second instance, jurisdiction can
ally, the terms "coastal belt," "jurisdiction," and also be coordinated or concurrent among agencies or
"pollution control" require attention. divisions within agencies. For example, although
The term coastal belt is intentionally vague. It the federal government through the Department of
refers to a geographical area, the specific boundaries Interior may have jurisdiction over exploration and
of which'are undefined. It includes the area called exploitation of the seabed beyond three miles of the
the coastal zone 2 and something more. With the coast, the jurisdiction of Interior's Bureau of Land
various extensions of coastal nation jurisdiction Management over leasing of outer continental shelf
taking place3 and the tremendous increase in ocean tracts is coordinated with its U.S. Geological Survey
activities, the term coastal belt is undoubtedly authority to issue and implement regulations regard-
designed to include the area of coastal nation juris- ing exploration and exploitation activities .4 jUris_
diction asserted in these extensions as well as juris- diction becomes more complicated when agencies
diction over the ocean activities occurring in those within the same level of government have concurrent
areas which may be of concern or interest to coastal jurisdiction. For instance, in California both the
nations. Thus, two jurisdictional characteristics pre- Energy Commission and the Coastal Commission
dominate and assist in clarifying the term. First, as have jurisdiction over aspects of the siting of electric
Special gratitude is expressed for the assistance of the National Sea energy facilities in the coastal zone.5
Grant Program which sponsored the author in research on "The Last, pollution control is a term often incorrectly
Implications of Changes in the Ocean Law for U.S. Coastal states." employed. to refer to the environmental management

efforts of government. While pollution control is a area. Although more subtle in conceptualization,
primary approach to environmental regulation in the this type enables more direct control over activities
coastal belt, it does not constitute the sole technique occurring beyond established jurisdictions. The
employed, nor is it necessarily the essential concern; instances of both direct and de facto jurisdictional
it sometimes suggests an unacceptable after-the-fact, extensions include: state extensions into federal
rather than preventive, approach to environmental areas of jurisdiction; state extensions into areas or
problems. Thus, planning approaches, inter alia (con- activities beyond its boundaries; and federal exten-
stituting a large part of the environmental regulatory sions into areas Or activities beyond its boundaries.
approach of coastal belt activities 6), should be con-
sidered along with pollution control as part of the State Extensions into Federal Areas of Jurisdictions
package of environmental management efforts. Energy activity in the California coastal area
An inventory of the emerging environmental has raised a number of state-federal jurisdictional
regimes and potential jurisdictional conflicts sug- conflicts which are examples of both direct and de
gests that they can be organized for analytical facto extensions. Each arises from the specter of air
purposes into the following categories: pollution within state boundaries resulting from
(1) Direct and de facto jurisdictional extensions-
" sources beyond its territory over which the state at
(2) Cooperative federalism problems from the present has . no clear legal control, and required
expansion and Suppression of state regula- control over activities in an area where the federal
tory initiatives; government generally has authority.
(3) Intragovernmental conflicts;
(4) Extent of public-private, cultural, and non- De facto., air pollution control beyond three miles. Under
human rights; and the Clean Air Act,7 states are delegated the authority
(5) New international regimes. to develop and enforce state implementation plans
Each issue area will now be discussed with examples which are approved by the administrator of the
in an attempt to clarify some of the legal issues Environmental Protection Agency. This confers
involved. authority upon the state to set emission standards
from particular stationary sources in an air quality
Direct and De Facto Jurisdictional Extensions region in order to achieve primary and secondary
national ambient air quality standards. Beyond the
Jurisdiction can be extended in at least two three@mile state territory (the territorial sea), neither
ways. One is direct, accomplished by the bald claim- the state nor the federal government has clear author-
ing and taking control of areas beyond established ity over air pollution, except with respect to deep-
areas of jurisdiction. The second may be more subtle; water ports and oil exploitation activity.8
it is a de facto extension accomplished by asserting The argument proposed by California in the
control within the established jurisdictional area current negotiations over the siting of a Sohio oil
when that area is serving as a conduit for activities tanker terminal at Long Beach9 is that a state may
beyond that boundary. That is, by controlling the be able to exercise regulatory authority over activities
passage of the activity through a specific juris- occurring beyond its territory in order to protect air
diction (e.g., state authority to regulate pipelines from quality in its territory.' 0 The limitation on this j uris-
O.C.S. development which travels ashore through its dictional extension, however, is that enforcement
three-mile jurisdictional area) sufficient leverage may could only be exercised within state territory, speci-
be possessed to exercise control with respect to fically while vessels are in its ports; but such enforce-
activities occurring outside the jurisdiction. A slight ment could be exercised with respect to conduct
variation is the type of de facto jurisdiction asserted occurring outside the three-mile limit.
over activities beyond the protected area in order to
prevent harm within the jurisdictional area. This Direct- OCS activities. A more direct approach to air
would be limited to activities which are generally pollution occurring from sources beyond state terri-
acknowledged to cause harm within the controlled tory has been proposed by some amendments to the

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act." At this time above in that the state does not extend its jurisdiction
facilities and operations on the outer continental into areas or over activities where there is a clear
shelf enjoy a sort of exemption from the Clean Air or potential conflict with federal jurisdiction. In two
Act, because under that Act there is no clear E.P.A. instances regarding out-of-state energy development
authority beyond three miles, and because the beneficial to California, state laws have been held
Department of the Interior, which regulates offshore administratively to have extraterritorial application.
facilities, has no regulations specifically pertaining In the first, the California Environmental Quality
to air emissions - no operating procedures or equip- Act (California's environmental impact statement
ment are specified to minimize air emissions. Of law) 19 was interpreted by the opinion of a California
course, operations occurring in this area can have a Attorney General. The opinion stated:
severe impact on air quality within the territorial CEQA clearly requires public agencies to consider the direct
limits of the state. For example, Exxon's Santa Ynez or ultimate impact of a project upon the environment of
tanker-loading operations, three and one-half miles California - whether the cause of that impact originates
within the boundaries of the state or outside of the state ...
off the California coast and approved by the Depart- The other part to this question is whether these same
ment of the Interior, 12 could increase onshore ozone agencies must consider those environmental impacts of a
readings by 93 to 160 percent, in violation of federal project which occur beyond the boundaries of the state and
ambient air quality standards. The proposal, there- which will arguably not have any foreseeably direct or
ultimate impact on the environment in California. The Cali-
fore, is to establish the authority of E.P.A. to enforce fornia Legislature, in enacting CEQA, could not have been so
compliance with air emission controls for the outer parochial in its thinking as to encourage California agencies
continental shelf through the state implementation to export their pollution by exempting those agencies from
Ian of the particular state. 13 responsibility for out-of-state pollution occasioned by the
P California agencies' demands. Also, the success of preserving
and enhancing the environment of California is dependent
Direct- baseline extension. California and other states on other states respecting California's environment and not
are no strangers to the technique of extending their permitting their state and local agencies to degrade the
territorial jurisdictions by way of redefining the base- quality of California's environment ... 20
lines from which their territorial seas are measured ' 14 In the second, the California Public Utilities
While opportunities are limited and the delimitation Commission (PUC) ruled that California- based utili-
rules are relatively well defined, efforts to do so ties must get PUC approval before they can'build
nevertheless continue.15 Moreover, lateral bound- plants outside the state. The PUC, in a 4-0 ruling,
aries between states have been subjects of dispute, declared that California utility rate-payers should
particularly when stakes are financially important, have some voice in how plants are built and financed,
as they could be under the Section 308 of the Coastal regardless of their location. "At a minimum, someone
Energy Impact Program.' 6 should determine whether the bill-payer needs the
-21
With the internationally proposed establishment goods before the time comes to pay.
of a twelve- mile territorial sea, 17 states may also make
efforts to acquire, in the additional nine miles of area,
interests they currently hold in the three-mile terri- Federal Extensions into Areas or Activities Beyond Its
torial sea, under the Submerged Lands Act. Although Boundaries
there is some speculation that this will be accom- Impact Statements. In similar fashion to the California
plished by litigation, the more likely approach is agency extensions mentioned above, the National
that this will occur either through administrative Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 22 has been held
delegation of regulatory authority over certain pollu- to have extraterritorial reach. Notwithstanding a
tion sources or by way of legislation, as was accom- number of judicial opinions to that effeCt,23 Russell
plished in 1953 by the Submerged Lands Act. 18 Peterson, then the chairman of the Council on
State Extensions into Areas or Activities Beyond Its Environmental Quality, in 1976 issued to the heads of
Boundaries federal agencies the following memorandum regard-
ing the application of NEPA's impact statement
These extensions differ from those discussed requirement to environmental impacts abroad:

[We advise that NEPA requires analysis and disclosure in of authority previously allowed or conferred by the
environmental statements of significant impacts of federal federal government on states, and the dynamic defi-
actions on the human environment - in the United States,
in other countries, and in areas outsid@ the jurisdiction of nitional development, primarily by the courts, of new
any country. state-federal approaches initiated by federal legisla-
We believe that by taking account of likely impacts abroad tion.
before deciding on a proposal of action, federal agencies can
obtain the same benefits of NEPA review that accompany the
development of projects or actions with domestic impacts.
Moreover, we believe that such analyses can be accomplished Expansion: State Control of Offshore Pollution
without imposing U.S. environmental standards on other
countries, and without interfering with the execution of For the last few years, states have valiantly
foreign policy. 24 resisted, with inadequate legal tools, the rapid devel-
Pollution zone. There has also been substantial interest opment of OCS lands off their coasts, development
in the last few years in the federal extension of the which may have severe environmental, social and
current twelve-mile pollution zone, 25 especially since economic impacts within their territory. Most chal-
Canada, to protect its environment and Arctic re- lenges to federal government development of these
sources, in 1970 extended its zone to one hundred areas have been procedural (via such acts as the
mileS.26 In the United States, this idea is manifested National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone
in Senate Bills 885 and 886, which propose an exten- Management Act, and the OCS Lands ACt,32 requiring
sion of the current marine pollution control zone to the federal government to consider onshore impact
200 miles. While this extension has been viewed as and other state interests in deciding whether or not to
unnecessary and contrary to international law, 27 lease OCS lands. Such acts merely give states a right
support for it grows with the lack of success in the to challenge the process of federal decision-making
law of the sea negotiations. 28 and do little to provide states 'with a substantive
and active role in the decision-making process, even
Cooperative Federalism Problems from the Expansion though there may be significant econon-dc, social,
and Suppression of.State Regulatory Initiatives and political impacts resulting from such devel-
Basic to our federal system are the enumerated opment.31 I
Arising from this concern have been efforts to
powers of the federal government to perform certain expand state involvement in the federal leasing of
functions and the residual authority vested in the offshore development rights, specifically with respect
states to perform those functions not specifically to environmental regulation. The possible roles being
conferred upon the federal government. In recent proposed for states in the legislation to amend the
decades, a "new federalism" has emerged from this 34
29 OCS Lands Act range from a veto authority to be
relationship. In many federal environmental laws, exercised only in a very limited number of situations
states are conferred authority to achieve broad and subject to federal override for a "national
conservational or resource allocation goals by intereSf,35 to some degree of state participation
employing methods which allow them to consider in a regional advisory board.
local needs and impacts. This is accomplished by
the delegation of authority to the states in areas in Suppression: Oil Spills
which the federal government has paramount author-
ity to legislate and implement laws. 30 In the situation of state regulation over oil
Recent events, however, raise new questions of spills, the state flexibility made possible by a Supreme
the meaning of this cooperative federaliSM.31 A Court decision in 197 3 36 is being dramatically limited
number of examples demonstrate the " tug- and- pull" by proposed federal legislation to establish a "super-
that has occurred and will ensue, and will un- fund .-37 The proposed fund would compensate for
doubtedly be one of the major jurisdictional issues spills in any U.S. waters and would cover both
in the coastal belt for years to come. In these persistent and nonpersistent oils spilled from ships
examples, one will recognize instances of conferring and barges as well as from terminals, pipelines,
new types of authority, the retraction or suppression refineries, drilling rigs, production platforms, and

deepwater ports. It would replace all existing federal laws. 43 That is, while laws such as the CZMA provide
funds and preempt duplicative state oil spill liability a framework for state environmental programs such
and compensation laws. Among others, the proposed initiatives can be overridden, in limited circum-
fund would allow for recovery of "economic dam- stances, by the federal governments determination
ages" to "natural resources" and would establish that an action may not be in the "national interest"
the state as a settlement agent, preempting much of or a state program may be altered by a federal project
its present ability to collect under its own specific that is determined to be in the national interest.
oil-spill legislation. Thus, until this elusive term receives some definition,
it remains a card in the federal government s deck and
Expansion or Suppression? CZMAs "Consistency" Clause states possess little to contend with it. It will no
and the Cloaked Club of "National Interest" doubt be more and more difficult to entice states
In a third example, involving "consistency" into federal programs when the security of their
of federal permits and projects with state coastal position is constantly threatened by the exercise
management programs, 38 states are trying to of this very flexible and federally accommodating
locate the "carrot" given them for participating provision.
in the federal coastal zone management process.
Under the federal Coastal Zone Managemen Cooperative Federalism: Special Treatment for Unique
Act of 1972 (CZMA) '39 states were provided with States and Regional Institutions to Solve Regional Prob-
planning and implementation of funds by the federal lems
government, as well as the consistency clause, in A state's geographical, economic, or demo-
return for their development, under federal criteria, graphic uniqueness or the interests of states in
of state coastal plans. Although this process was not certain environmental issues of a regional nature
mandatory, all "coastal states" under the act have suggest a possible new dimension to cooperative
participated. federalism. Exemptions or exceptions to national
in the first effort to define the meaning of regulatory programs are sought44 for unique environ-
"consistency," Arco v. Evans,40 the state of Washing- mental situations presented by states such as Hawaii
ton discovered that it was not quite as much as it or Alaska, and new regional institutions are being
thought it wasAn that case, Arco sued officials of created to attend to regional problems (e.g., energy
the state of Washington to enjoin the enforcement of and water) in the eleven western stateS.45
a 197 5 Washington law regulating oil tankers operat- One of the implications of these approaches
ing in the Puget Sound. Washington had incorporated is that environmental issues will be dealt with on a
that law into its coastal program as one of its much more local basis than previously; more than
enumerated tools for implementing the plan. It one standard will apply and each will be tailored to
argued, therefore, that once the program was ap- the unique characteristics of the area involved. While
proved by the secretary of commerce, federal actions certain latitude is allowed for state differences in
had to be "consistent" with the law. our federal system, the prospect of economic dis-
The court held that federal law (specifically location as a consequence of broad nonuniformity,
the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 197 2 (PWSA))41 however, is usually the very reason supporting
46
preempted the field in that it established a com- federally imposed regimen.
prehensive federal scheme for regulating the opera-
tions, traffic routes, pilotage, and safety design Intragovemmental Conflicts
specifications of tankers. The court also held that
since the PWSA was preemptive of Washington's Central to many conflicts within a certain
tanker law, "consistency" could not otherwise elimi- level of government is the priority or preemptive
nate the conflict with the preemptive federal law. 42 effect of one agency's jurisdiction over another's.
Contrasted with the purported "carrot' of con- With the rapid enlargement of the field of environ-
sistency is the potential club of "national interest" mental law at both the federal and the state levels,
which is available under the CZMA and other federal this is becoming a significant point of conflict.

This situation is illustrated well on the federal level require substantial state agency assistance, and will
by the Arco case mentioned above 47 in which there necessitate active state oversight.
is at least a state-perceived overlap of the authority
of the Department of Commerce under the CZMA and Extent of Public-Private, Cultural, and Nonhuman
the Coast Guard in the Department of Transportation, Rights
operating under the PWSA. Equally as illustrative is
the conflict between the Department of Transporta- Public-Private Rights
tion, which has the authority to license the con-
struction of deepwater ports under the Deepwater Public trust doctrine. While jurisdictional questions
Ports Act 1974 (DWPA)48 and the Federal Trade usually involve the level of government and its
Commission, which has the responsibility to prevent boundaries of assertive authority, or the competence
monopolistic restraints of trade .49 These sorts of of a particular agency within a level of a government
overlapping jurisdictions and conflicts of jurisdiction to regulate a certain activity, jurisdiction might also
as well as uncoordinated administrative enforcement concern the extent to which private rights may be
lead increasingly to uncertainty for the private subjected to the rights of the public. This is an issue
sector which depends upon a certain stability of which is directly confronted in the application by
regulation and implementation policies to finance many states of the public trust doctrine. The doc-
many of their projects. The problem is particularly trine, quite broadly stated, holds that some types of
severe in the energy development area. natural resources are held in trust by state govern-
At the state level, conflicts do occur among state ments for the benefit of the public. Thus, even though
agencies and difficulties also arise in cases where certain lands may be held for private persons, the
public trust doctrine imposes a public servitude upon
agencies have concurrent or cooperative jurisdiction. the use of those lands. 52
But most interesting for environmental management Historically, the doctrine has been confined
concerns is the interrelationship of state and local to navigable waters, the foreshore and park lands.
governments. Traditionally, of course, local govern- The public activities promoted in such areas are
ment was delegated authority to deal with land-use delineated in this quote from a late nineteenth
questions within its boundaries. But as land- use deci- century case:
sions were recognized as including aspects of broader
concern beyond traditional political boundaries, [The people of the state are allowed to] enjoy the navigation
such as environmental impact, or beyond the capacity of the waters, carry on commerce over them and have liberty
of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference
Of the local decision-maker, states resumed greater of private parties. 53
control over many local land-use decisions. The public trust can be asserted in a number
Thus, in many state coastal zone management of ways: by the state against private parties; by
schemes, the state delegates to local authorities private parties challenging government action involv-
the initial decision-making and planning functions, ing public trust areas; defensively by a citizen who
but retains supervisory and some enforcement wishes to resist a governmental action involving
authority. In addition, local government may be his/her property; Or by one private party (acting as
obligated to function in accord with certain state- a member of the public) against another attempting
established criteria. In California, local govern- to enforce a public right to a particular public
ments are responsible for developing local imple-
mentation plans (LiPs) to carry out the policies of resource area.
the state coastal act and state coastal plan.50 The Vested rights. A second instance of the public-private
California law, however, requires each city and rights controversy arises in the frequent claim by
county to adopt a "comprehensive long-range general private parties that they have rights of development
plan" and if the experience accumulated under this in property they own which vest before public regu-
law is any guide to the future success of such prac- latory authority is authorized. That is, any action
tice,51 the development and implementation of the taken by a governmental agency which interferes with
LIPs will take longer than the prescribed time, will the assertion of this private development right is

unconstitutional without compensation, a "taking" previously enjoyed - even though they were pro-
of property, an ex post facto law, or violation of due vided gratuitously in the past - may now amount
process. to a due process violation.
Various approaches have been employed by
courts and legislators to determine when rights vest Cultural Rights v. Public Regulation
to develop land. Some provide that a right vests A different type of jurisdictional conflict is
when the last discretionary act is taken by a regu- presented by that which pits cultural rights against
latory body having jurisdiction, and others determine governmental regulation. While there is not a pre-
the point of vesting by specifying which types of ponderance of situations in which this issue arises,
permits must have been obtained (e.g., grading there are likely to be instances of this problem in
permits) before vesting takes place.
Whatever t ,he determination, the consequences the future. At present, however, the current and
for public regulation of private property are sub- apparent accession of the federal government to the
stantial. The earlier the vesting, the more favorable International Whaling Commission's one-year mora-
it is to the private owner. Thus, if the former standard torium on subsistence hunting of the Bowhead whale
applies, depending on the regulatory system, the presents such a case. The governmental action has
been described as a "plot to exterminate . . . the
right is likely to vest later in the course of develop- Inupiat of Alaska" of whose cultural, economic, and
ing the property than if the latter applies. nutritional well-being the Bowhead is an integral
Expediting the process and delimiting the cIitizens role. part. For the Inupiat Eskimo,
the whale is more than food . . . it is the center of our life
Efforts to enlarge or diminish private citizen partici- and culture. We are the people of the whale. The taking and
pation in public decisions or their rights to represent sharing of the whale is our Eucharist and our Passover. The
the public interest can also have an impact on where whaling festival is our Easter and Christmas, the Arctic
the division between private and public rights is celebration of the mysteries of life. 56
drawn. Developments, both judicial and legislative, Nonhuman Rights and Private Rights
to expand the standing to sue of private citizens when
they represent public interests have resulted in Reverence for the species with which we share
bringing many more environmental issues before the earth has long been recognized by segments
bodies performing judicial functions.5' More of our population as an essential function of govern-
recently, purportedly in order to instill more cer- ment. For many years, however, government's fulfill-
tainty into the permit process, legislators have ment of this goal was generally limited to setting aside
attempted to limit the private citizen exercise of areas for protection as public nature preserves and
such rights by'either narrowing the instances in assuring that these areas were managed on the
which standing was available for them or by setting multiple use and maximum sustainable yield prin-
.strict time limitations upon their exercise. In addi- ciples.
tion, deadlines for the processing of permit appli- Only in very recent times has the notion of
cations have been proposed and consolidation of Protecting species of special significance to humans
agency public hearings involved in a specific or those species threatened with extinction been an
project have been administratively and legislatively important approach to wildlife preservation and
imposed.'5 management. Under the Endangered Species Act of
These reforms, in many cases, are needed and 1973 57 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
long overdue; in other cases, they threaten to 1972,58 various species receive, in effect, rights
diminish the role of citizens in environmental protected by administrative agencies and even
management. In view of the positive role generally protectable in the courts by citizens.59 External to
played by citizen participation in these processes, those protections provided by legislation, there is
one must therefore be careful to avoid stifling effects also a growing support in the legal community for the
in the name of reform. Most important, excessive idea that nonhumans in certain instances do have
curtailing of the rights of participation that citizens rights of insufficient status to compete with private

and public rights in property, and that such rights maintained, the rights of coastal nations to assert
could be adequately rep-resented in legal fora by a pollution- control jurisdiction over activities in
type of guardian ad litem.11 this area will be limited.
Beyond the twelve-mile territorial sea of coastal
New International Regimes nations, the law of the sea negotiations propose
The creation of new international regimes can an area designated the "exclusive economic zone,"
raise a myriad of potential conflict situations. By which is not to exceed two hundred miles from the
redrawing the boundaries of national control, various baseline from which the territorial sea is measured
questions of definition and measurement are raised; (or 188 miles from the outer boundary of the terri-
reason for dispute is also provided if one nation's torial sea). While the precise juridical status of the
new area of control merges into any areas previously EEZ is not clear.yet, there is consensus regarding
claimed by another nation or national. in a federal some of its aspects. Generally within the EEZ, the
system such as ours, in which federal-state jurls- coastal state will have sovereign rights with respect
diction is constantly in dispute, reassessment of the to exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing
respective rights and interests of states and the the living and nonliving resources of the seabed,
federal government is inevitable. International subsoil and the superjacent water column. Along with
creation of new regimes also raises jurisdictional port and flag states, coastal states will have enforce-
issues regarding the new rights and obligations the ment authority over polluting activities in this area,
but the traditional rights of commercial transpor-
new regimes may impose directly upon the nation tation are maintained, and exclusive jurisdiction over
(and thus in the U.S. how state and federal authority scientific research in this area is vested in the coastal
should be distributed), as well as how those rights nation.
and obligations may be exercised by other countries The new proposals also reject the technological
and the impact of that exercise on our various state standard of the 1958 Convention on the Continental
and federal interests. Shelf which determines the extent of coastal control
The Law of the Sea over the resources of the continental shelf by allow-
In the international system today, the United ing exploitation to a depth of 200 meters or to the
extent of exploitability. The proposals now rest juris-
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea raises diction over "continental shelf' resources on a
numerous prospects for jurisdictional conflict at the geological determination (the "natural prolongation
international level between the U.S. and other coun- of the land") and, in any case, extends a coastal
tries and at the national level with respect to federal- state's exclusive jurisdiction over the seabed
state concerns. These arise primarily from the redefi- resources (primarily oil and gas) at least 200 miles
nition of coastal nation jurisdiction in the coastal from the baseline to conform to the EEZ extension.
belt. If the shelf extends beyond 200 miles, the coastal
Discussion of changes. Among the significant juris- state maintains jurisdiction but must share its reve-
dictional changes proposed by the current law of the nues from such exploitation with the International
sea negotiations6' will be the international stipulation Seabed Authority.
that the territorial sea is twelve nautical miles That which is beyond national jurisdiction is
in breadth. This alters the situation existing at considered an international area. Under the 1958
present, under the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Convention on the High Seas, 63 this area is open to
S
62
ea, which leaves to each nation the obligation of all nations for free navigation, overflight, the laying
setting its own territorial sea. The new breadth of cables and pipelines, and fishing, subject to the
conforms to the present territorial claims of the duty of each nation to adopt or cooperate in the
majority of nations, but it would expand the terri- adoption of measures necessary for the conservation
torial sea of the United States from three to twelve of the living resources of the high seas. The law of
miles. And, although the right of international com- the sea negotiations introduce a new approach to the
meTce to innocent passage through this area is still management of shared resources by proposing that

the seabed and subsoil of those areas beyond national environmental efforts, for example, is that actions
jurisdictions (in most instances areas beyond the currently available under the Port and Waterways
EEZ) be controlled by a new international organiza- Safety Act 68 (e.g., with respect to segregated ballasts
tion, the International Seabed Authority, of which or double bottoms) are prohibited. Moreover, the
all parties to the new Law of the Sea Convention "generally accepted international rules" may prohibit
would be members. use of the U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Act' s
Also within the overall scheme proposed by the "visible sheen" test for oil pollution and limit the
negotiations, priority is given to developing countries U.S. to the percentage test under the 1954 Convention
for the exploitation of resources in their particular (that is, if the 1969 Amendments to the C. onvention 69
region and special rights of access are accorded are not considered "generally accepted").
landlocked nations. Protection of environmentally Beyond the territorial sea, in the EEZ, only
sensitive ice-covered areas is provided and areas "applicable international standards" may be en-
within a nation's EEZ which are subject to severe forced. If a violation occurs, then the flag state of
climatic conditions creating obstructions or hazards the vessel will have an opportunity to preempt the
to navigation may be protected by special laws of that coastal state's jurisdiction. With the miserable
nation. record of flag state enforcement, this may be the
"escape hatch." Whether the exception to this pre-
Impacts on federal and state government Notwith- emption - that the flag state has repeatedly dis-
standing the possibility that the law of the sea nego- regarded enforcement or the violation has caused
tiations may be unsuccessful, many of these pro- severe damage to the coastline - will be adequate
visons may survive the negotiations with sufficient to overcome preemption when coastal state interests
status to be considered international customary are paramount is yet to be seen.
law;64 thus, despite a convention agreement and In overall evaluation, therefore, the coastal state
ratification, some of the negotiation's provisions has a limited opportunity to effectively protect its
may have sufficient universal acceptance 65 to have marine environment in, say, an Argo Merchant-type oil
international legal effect. SpiI170 (which occurred beyond twelve miles), except
Whatever their nature - conventional or after the damage is done.
customary - the new law of the sea with respect Violators are held to the liability requirements
to environmental regulation of the coastal belt will established by international law for any damage
have some impact on both federal and state govern- attributable to them. What this means is that the
ments. The impacts will be felt in terms of boundary approximately $17 million limit of the 1969 IMCO
and enforcement jurisdiction, imposition of new Convention, as initially agreed on, a0plies even
rights and obligations, and the imposition of new though clean-up costs and damage to natural re-
regulatory systems upon U.S. nationals by foreign sources and other victims of the pollution (e.g.,
countries. A brief discussion of some of these follows. beach resorts, etc.) may in fact cause damages in the
(1) National government. The current negotia- hundreds of millions of dollars. Thus, such funds as
tions will affect U.S. environmental interests in at provided for in legislation recently proposed in the
least three major areas of regulation: vessel-source U. S. 71 could not be employed.
pollution control, marine scientific research, and . Marine scientific research, so important for
deepsea mining. the development of an adequate international data
The traditional coastal state authority to set base for the oceans, is the subject of substantial
72
standards for vessel safety or discharge in the terri- negotiations at the law of the sea negotiations.
torial sea 66 is replaced by a specific prohibition Under the draft, a "consent regime" is established
against national vessel-safety laws (if they are whereby coastal states have jurisdiction to permit
different from international ones) and a general , research activities within their EEZs and on their
prohibition indicating that national laws must continental shelves. As finally adopted in the draft
conform to "generally accepted international proposals, consent will be given by the coastal state
rules."67 What this means to the United States' in "normal circumstances," unless the research

involves a matter of direct significance to the explora- Authority are immune to challenge and the promulga-
tion or exploitation of its natural resources (living or tion of rules and procedures of the Authority's
nonliving), drilling into the continental shelf, the Assembly or Council cannot be reviewed for its
77
construction of artificial islands or other types of conformity with the ICNT provisions. The impact
installations, or there is a falsification or inaccuracy of these exclusions from the "mandatory" dispute-
73
of information submitted to the coastal state. settlement procedures, of course, leaves a large
The ICNT provisions regarding scientific marine number of environmental management actions
research are disappointing in light of the tremendous outside the purview of anyone. The prospects for
reliance that must be placed on the development of abuse by the Authority or nonenforcement of the
such information to ensure the environmental environmental obligations of the ICNT are, therefore,
integrity of the oceans. While the consent regime enormous without sufficient safeguards.
proposed by the ICNT restricts the normal production (2) State governments. State governments have
of research, it does establish some uniformity and little direct involvement in international negotiations
some protection against requirements which may be even when their interests are substantially affected.'6
unilaterally determined by coastal states. In the case of the LOS negotiations, various pro-
While the provisions of the ICNT regarding deep- visions of the proposals, namely the expansion of the
sea mining are fundamentally unacceptable to a territorial sea, the creation of the EEZ, redefinition
number of developed countries from a financial of the continental shelf, and exploitation of deepsea
and institutional perspective, they are also, upon minerals may have significant economic impact on
reflection, remarkably @leficient from an environ- state interests as well as producing certain state-
mental one. In short, they provide minimal environ- federal conflicts over environmental control. Ques-
mental safeguards, if any at all, for an activity in tions such as: What interest does California have in
an area of the ocean about which we know very the EEZ with respect to pollution control? What are
little. its interests in coastal and long distance (e.g., tuna)
First, the ICNT provisions regarding environ- fishing? and What control will it have over the on-
mental assessment are vague; 74 they provide few, shore siting of mineral processing plants for deepsea
if any, standards for their application (e.g., timing) minerals? may be legitimately raised by California
and will be administered by the Authority's Technical in an effort to analyze and protect its interests. In
Commission which will have a developmental- attempting to answer these and other questions,
promotive orientation. states are cast into a long-range planning posture
Second, while national laws, which are at least which they are generally ill-equipped to undertake.
as strict as international ones, may be imposed on However, in this fast-chang-ing world, states will
installations and vessels flying that nation's flag, increasingly find they cannot afford to merely
the Authority is primarily responsible for developing respond to international changes, and will want to
regulations for the protection of the marine environ- become a greater part of the effort to shape national
ment.7 5 For this purpose, the ICNT states no standards policies in these international negotiations. 79
nor suggests any guidelines. The prospect of these changes also suggests
Third, although possibly a concession to devel- that states may want to reconsider their present
oped country interests regarding the security of position under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953,
investment in deepsea mining ventures, there is no which provides for the ownership of the seabed and
latitude for contract modification or the imposition the resources in the three-mile territorial sea.80 This
of additional environmentally inspired conditions could be attempted by either the adjustment of the
for a specific deepsea development venture, even baseline,81 judicial decision, 132 or amendment of the
when a significant technological or scientific break- Submerged Lands Ace 3 or other acts to provide for
through occurs except where such an event qualifies some regulatory control.
as a "special circumstance. ,76
Fourth, the dispute- settlement procedures under While the preceding was an attempt to anticipate
the ICNT provide that discretionary actions of the future environmental jurisdiction conflicts in the

coastal belt, the jurisdictional plight of the coastal States and Canada, and in other areas, seaward to the
belt may be summarized by the following observa- outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The zone
tions. First, jurisdictions in the coastal belt are extends inland from the shorelines only to the extent
necessary to control shorelands, the uses of which have a
multiple, overlapping, and fragmented in some areas, direct and significant impact on the coastal waters." Id.
where, with respect to other activities and areas, at section 1453.
there are large gaps of coverage. Second, environ- 3. E.g., the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 USC
mental problems and, in particular, pollution do not 1801 etseq.; the Mexican extension of its resource manage-
ment zone to 200 miles primarily to protect its offshore
respect political boundaries. Effective regulation, oil claims; and the North Korean imposition of a "mili-
therefore, will often require transboundary manage- tary zone" of 200 miles into which civilians and military
ment - an approach which has had limited success craft are barred without permission.
nationally and internationally. Third, jurisdictional 4. See generally, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 PJSC
conflicts will increase as competition- producing 1331 et seq.
activity increases in the coastal belt. There will be 5. Cal. Pub. Res. C. �25000 et seq. Cal. Pub. Res. C. �30000 et
competition for the exclusive use or multiple use of seq. Id, at 30400. -
6. E.g., The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321 et
ocean space; for the priority of use; and for the seq., and the Coastal Zone Management Act, supra note 2.
control of that use among levels of government (state, 7. 42 USC � 185 et seq.
federal, international) and between units of govern- 8. See Deepwater Ports Act, 33 USC 1501 et seq. and the Outer
ment FourtIL some of the most difficult and pivotal Continental Shelf Lands Act supra note 4.
of future issues involve those identified above in 9. Sohio, proposed to build a $500,000,000 oil terminal in Long
the section on cooperative federalism. Resolution of Beach to receive Sohio's oil from Alaska's north slope and
these conflicts will probably rely on the judicial and transport it through a pipeline to Texas, where it will be
administrative determination of the substance of refined. From that point the oil will be carried by truck
and train to Sohio's markets in the midwest. Sohio's pro-
several essential concepts: preemption, de facto con- posal indicates it will reverse the flow of a natural gas
trol, and national interest. Each has to do with defin- pipeline which now brings gas from Texas to California to
ing the scope of acceptable state initiative and accommodate the need for transporting oil from California
expansion of jurisdiction which cannot or will not be to Texas.
10. The issue has arisen because of the smog problem in the
overridden by the federal government. Los Angeles Air Basin. The California Air Resources Board
Many of these conflicts will be resolved by the fears that the smog problem will be exacerbated because of
courts. Others will be resolved by legislation. Some the common practice among tanker captains of flushing out
conflicts, however, may not be the appropriate their oil compartments with sea water after unloading oil.
As the water fills the compartments it displaces large
subject of either process. Jurisdictions are not volumes of oil vapors into the air. The same thing hap-
normally established by caprice and, in most in- pens when tankers fill their oil tanks with water ballast
stances, they possess a constituency of interests after unloading. Together, the two practices are capable of
adding as much new air pollution to the smoggy Los
and political power. Thus, some jurisdictional con- Angeles Basin as the exhaust from 3.5 million additional
flicts may be healthy for our system of government cars.
and may be best served by the ordinary give-and-take 11. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1977,
of negotiations based on a bargaining of interests. Senate Bill 9; See also testimony of Bill Press, Director of
the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State of
Notes California, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, April 25, 1977.
1. Paraphrase of an anecdote presented in M. Schwartz, "Emerg- 12. Comments to suggested amendments to the Outer Conti-
ing Patterns in American Law," Pac. LJ 8 (1977): 523. nental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1977, submitted by
2. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USC 1451 et Senator Alan Cranston May 24, 1977.
seq, the "coastal zone" is defined as the "coastal waters 13. See also, HR 1614, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(including the lands therein and thereunder) and the Amendments of 1977, �5.
adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and
thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in 14. E.g., the United States vs. California, 332 U.S. 804 (1947);
proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and United States vs. California, 381 U.S. 139 (1965); and
and includes transitional and intertitle areas, salt marshes, United States vs. California, 382 U.S. 448 (1966).
wet land and beaches. The zone extends, in Great Lakes 15. See generally, H.G. Knight, The Law of the Sea: Cases, Docu-
waters, to the international boundary between the United ments and Readings (1975), 133-281.

16., Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976, P.L. 33. See e.g., P. Baldwin and M. Baldwin, Onshore Planning for
94-307, 90 Stat. 10 13, 16 USC � 1451 et seq.; see also, the Offshore Oil (1975).
Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments Act of 1976, 34. See S.9, Outer- Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of
tailoring coastal zone protection to expanded offshore oil 1977.
production, 6 ELR 13193 (1976).
17. See the Informal Composite Negotiating Text ICNT, A/Conf 35. See "Offshoye Veto Asked by Brown", in Sacramento Bee, April
26, 1977; see also Testimony of Bill Press, Director of the
62/WP. 10, 15 July 1977 (hereinafter cited as ICNT); see California Office of Planning and Research, before the
R. Lutz, "National Hegemony and International Suzerainty Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, April 25,
in the Oceans: the Environmental Implications of the Law 1977.
of the Sea Negotiations," International Business Lawyer
(1977). 36. Askew vs. American Waterways Operators, Inc., 411 US 325
18. Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 USC 1301 et seq. (1973).
19. Cal. Pub. Res. C. �21000 et seq. 37. See H.6803, Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Com-
pensation Act.
20. 58 A.G. Opin (Sept. 26, 1975), 614; 616-617. 38. Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act; see R.
21. B. Stall, "PUC Claims Right to O.K. Out-of-State Power Plant," Hildreth, "The Operation of the Federal Coastal Zone
Los Angeles Times, October 26, 1977. Management Act as Amended," Nat Res. Lawyer, 10 (1977):
211.
22. E.g., the National Environmental Policy Act. 42 USC 4321 et
seq. and the Coastal Zone Management Act, supra note 2. 39. 16 USC � 1451 et seq.
23. E.g., Sierra Club vs. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 4 ELR 40. Arco v. Evans, U.S. District Court, Western District of Wash-
20685 (D.D.C. 1974) and Environmental Defense Fund vs. ington, No. C75-648M (September 24, 1976).
United States Agency for International Development, Civil 41. 33 USC � � 1221 et seq.
Action No. 75-0500 (D.D.C., filed April 8, 1975). See also
international application of NEPA: Environmentalists Chal. 42. Arco v. Evans, supra note 40.
lenge Pesticide Aid Program, 5 ELR 10086 (1975). 43. See Section 307(c)(3)(B)(iii) and 307(d). See'generally, Hil-
24. Congressional Record, E 5394-5395 (October 1, 1976). dreth, "The Operation of the Federal Coastal Zone Manage-
25. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, ment Act as Amended," Nat Res. Lawyer, 10 (1977): 211, 219.
516 UNTS 205, 15 UST 1606, TIAS No. 5639 (in force 44. For example, because Hawaii is able to deposit its sewage in
September 10, 1964). the ocean through a long-distance outfall, it feels that the
26. See the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act; see also secondary and tertiary treatment of sewage required under
Bilder, the Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
Act, in Alexander, ed., The Law of the Sea: the United Nations 1972 is unnecessary. Similarly, Alaska, with its very rich
and Ocean Management (1971), 204; and Bilder, "The Cana- fisheries, feels it deserves treatment unique from other
dian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act New Stresses states. Thus, under the Fishery Conservation and Manage-
on the Law of the Sea," Mich. L Rev. 69 (1970): 1. ment Act of 1976, supra note 3, Alaska has its own
Regional Council to develop regional fishery management
27. Ninety percent of vessels traveling in U.S. territorial seas plans.
come into one of our ports, enabling the United States to 45. For example, in June 1977 senators from California and ten
exercise jurisdiction, design, construction, personnel and other western states formed a Senate Western Coalition
equipment of foreign ships. See R. Lutz, supra note 17. to promote and protect regional interests on such diverse
28. See Senate Bills 885 and 886, 95th Congress, First Session. issues as water and land development This is.a step in
29. C.R. Walston, Ecology L.Q, 6 (1977): 429, Id. at note 2 in which the "growing trend of fragmentation in Congress along
several acts are cited and described. Among them are the regional . . . lines. Southerners in Congress have long
National Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 worked together in an informal Dixie bloc. More recently,
42 USC �4371-74 (1970), the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 there has been the formation in the Senate of a north-
42 USC � �2011-2296 (1970); the Outer Continental Shelf eastern caucus and a midwestern caucus, both to protect
Lands Act, 43 USC � � 1331-43; the Deepwater Ports Act, 33 regional interests." See "Western Senators Form Unit to
USC � 1501 -24; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USC Protect Regional Interests," Sacramento Bee (June 10, 1977).
� 1451-64. See also the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, supra note 3, which provides for Regional Councils to
30. The extent to which the federal government can exercise develop regional fishery management plans and the pro-
authority in these areas is determined by the commerce posed amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
clause (U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, �8), the supremacy clause Act, supra note 11, which suggests that state participation
(U.S. Constitution, Art. 6, clause 2), and the Federal Navi- in the tract-selection process be confined to participation
gational Servitude (which originates from the commerce in regional boards.
clause). 46. See notes 39-42.
31. To some degree, these issues are suggested by R. Walston, 47. See supra note 40 and accompanying text
supra note 29.
32. See supra note 29. 48. 33 USC � 1501 et seq.

49. See 8 Coastal Zone Management Newsletter (August 3, 1977). ities, and secondly a sentiment that such acts are juridically
50. See Cal. Pub. Res. C �30500 et seq. necessary to maintain valid international relations. The first
element is mere usage, which by itself does not make law, the
51. See Cal. Govt Code �65300. second is an intellectual conviction according to which
52. See generally, W. Rodgers, Environmental Law (1977): 170-185. identical situations of fact should lead to similar reciprocal
behaviour patterns. Looked at in this waythe lawisdependent
53. Illinois Central R.R. vs. Illinois, 146 US 387 (1892). not upon unanimity, but only upon generality of will. The
54. See generally, S. McCaffrey and R. Lutz, eds. Environmental dissenting minority of States are as much bound by the
Pollution and the Rights of Private Citizens.- An International formulated rule as those who actively participated in its
Symposium (1978). creation, the source of their obligation residing in the moral
55. See generally, Bosselman, The Permit Explosion (1977); see also necessity which underlies observance of all law.
efforts to amend the California Environmental Quality Act O'Connell, International Lawyer, 1 (1970): 15.
(CEQA) in A.B. 884. Many such efforts may legitimately 66. N.b., The territorial sea breadth established by the ICNT
raise concerns about due process. For an international (i.e., 12 miles) is the same distance from the baseline as
perspective on this issue see McCaffrey and Lutz, id the contiguous zone was under the 1958 Convention. In
56. See Hopson, "Alaskan Mayor Calls Bowhead Hunt Vital for that area coastal states were allowed to "exercise the
'People of the Whale,"' LosAngeles Times, NovembeT6,1977 control necessary to prevent infringement of its ... sani-
See also, P. Rich and A. Wickham "With Goodwill and Good tary regulations within its territory or territorial sea7
Sense," Not Man Apart 7 (mid-October 1977): 7; and "Of (1958 Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous
Eskimos and Whales," Not Man Apart 7 (October 1977): 9. Zone, Art. 24). This provision was interpreted to permit
coastal states to establish environmentally protective
57. Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 USC � 1531 etseq. See also regulations applicable to vessels.
L. Wood, " � 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973: a 67. ICNT, Art 21(2).
Significant Restriction for All Federal Activities," ELR 5
(1975): 50189. 68. P. L. 92-340.
58. 16 USC � 1361 et seq.; see generally, Gaines and Schn-ddt, 69. See generally F. Grad, Treatise on Environmental Law, 13-55 to
"Wildlife Population Management Under the Marine 13-74 (1977).
Mammal Protection Act of 1972," ELR 6 (September 1976): 70. McManus and Schneider, "Shipwrecks, Pollution and the
50096, and J. Nafziger and J. Armstrong, "The Porpoise- Law of the Sea," National Parks and Conservation Magazine,
Tuna Controversy: Management of Marine Resources After (June 1977): 15.
Committee for Humane Legislation, Inc. vs. Richardson,"
Env. Law 7 (1977): 223. 71. See J. Reynolds, "Oil Spill Liability and Compensation
(Superfund)," in Proceedings of the 1977 Oil Spill Conference
59. See Comment, "Special Status of Wildlife Receives Judicial (Preventiort Behavior, Control Cleanup) 15 (March 8-10,
Approval," ELR 6 (December 1976): 10270. 1977).
60. See the seminal article by C. Stone, "Should Trees Have 72. See, for example, A. F. Vysotsky, "Freedom of Scientific
Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects," S. Cal Research in the World Ocean," Ga J Ind 6 and Comp. L 7
L Rev. 45 (1972): 450. (1976).
61. The Third Law of the Sea Conference is being conducted 73. See generally ICNT, Art. 247; ICNT, Art. 247(3); ICNT, Art
under the auspices of the United Nations and was first 247(4)(a); ICNT, Art. 247(4)(b); ICNT, Art 247(4)(c); ICNT, Art
convened in Caracas, Venezuela in 1924. Since then three 247(4)(d).
attempts at a negotiating text have been issued. The first
was the Informal Single Negotiating Text (A/C 62/WP. 74. ICNT, Art. 1(1), 145, and 2 10(l); ICNT, Art.,16 I(l)(b), 163(2)(iv),
8/Parts I-III). The second text was called the Revised 163(2)(xii), 160.
Single Negotiating Text (RSNT), (A/Conf. 62/WP. 8/Rev. 75. ICNT, part XI, Section 5, and Annex 11, Para. I I (b)(5), and para.
I/Parts 1, 11, and 111, 6 May 1976, and the fourth part on I I (x) and (xii).
settlement of disputes, A/Conf. 62/WP. 9/Rev. 1/6 May
1976). The third negotiating text is the Informal Composite 76. Anne)ell para. 13(a).
Negotiating Text (ICNT) (A/Conf, 62/WP. 10, 15 July 1977). 77. ICNT, Aft 163 and 191.
62. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 78. E.g., in the instance of a U.S.-Great Britain Tax Treaty, the
5 16 UNTS 205, 15 UST 1606, TIAS No. 5639 (in force State Department proceeded with negotiations of much of
September 10, 1964). The following discussion of the Law the treaty without concern for the impact on particular
of the Sea Conference is taken in part from R. Lutz, supra states. The treaty purportedly would prevent California and
note 17. other states from taxing multinational corporations on what
63. Conventio ,n on the High Sea, 450 UNTS 82, 13 UST 2312, is called a unitary basis, taking into account their world-
TIAS No. 5200 (in force September 30, 1962). wide operations as well as those in California. It is reported
that the abandonment of the unitary method of taxation
64. See J. Laylin, "Emerging Customary Law of the Sea," Inter- would cost the state $125,000,000 in annual revenue (see
national Lawyer 10 (1976): 669. Walters, "Unitary Tax Switch - Brown Hit on'Sell-Out,"
65. Therefore, there are two basic elements to custom, first a Sacramento Union [September 30, 19771). Similarly, in the
generalised repetition similar acts by competent State author- controversy over the moratorium on the Bowhead whale,

Eskimos reportedly received very short notice of the action
of the Department of Commerce and of the international
Whaling Commission. See supra note 56.
79. E.g., see hearing by California Senate Subcommittee on Land
Use Planning, "New Ocean Law: Its Meaning to Western
States," Sacramento, California, July 14, 1977.
80. See text accompanying notes 17-18, supra.
81. The California Attorney General's office has made persistent
efforts to clarify and in some cases redefine the baseline
for California. Conversation with Russell lungerih, Deputy
Attorney General, State of California, Los Angeles, Call-
fornia.

82. See text accompanying note 18 supra.
83. See notes 11-13, supra.

Goals for Public Management

Giulio Pontecorvo

Graduate School of Business, Columbia University

The title of this brief paper is ambiguous. Are we - an activity is best managed as a monopoly. In
discussing today regulation of the private economic this case the question becomes the relative desira-
system in the public interest? If this is the case we bility of public Versus private monopoly and manage-
must justify: ment, e.g., the argument for creation of a body such
(1) Intervention at all. We may regard the argu- as a port authority.
ment over intervention as a public cost/benefit Let us begin with a few fundamentals about the
calculus, but it also has ideological content, i.e., is role of government in an economy which, despite
it better to intervene in the public interest or let (in my opinion) many defects in the operation of
market forces prevail? If time permits, it may be markets, remains essentially a market economy,
possible to comment on the different aspects of this i.e., we will take as given the idea of markets with
issue, at least in response to questions. imperfections as central in the allocation process.
(2) The extent and kind of intervention. Does This will allow us to avoid Daniel Bell, Irving Kristol,
public management of fisheries really require a, b, and Milton Friedman, on the right, and J. K. Gal-
and c, or perhaps just a and b. braith, legitimate socialists, and certain environ-
Or are we discussing the creation of public manage- mentalists on the left. I may as well be candid and
ment bodies to supplant the private market system? say that in my opinion the defects in markets are
It is important to sort these basic questions out structural and, therefore, require intervention,
since the Fishery Management and Conservation especially those defects which involve the level of
Act of 1976 has, in my opinion, a basic internal knowledge, decision-making under uncertainty, and
contradiction in that it confuses two objectives: differential time horizons.
(1) improving the management of our fisheries; and We will briefly discuss the three broad functions
(2) providing protection and support for primary pro- usually suggested as the appropriate criteria for
ducers of fish. evaluation of government intervention: allocation,
Historically the grounds for intervention have distribution, and stabilization. Then we will make
been based on some defect - real or alleged - in certain comments about the current status of fish-
the operation of markets and/or the institutional eries management under the Fishery Management
arrangements of industry and property that require and Conservation Act of 1976 and, finally, some com-
intervention. The common property legal condition of ments on the research needs required to provide
fisheries resources is one such institutional condition efficient management in the public interest.
that requires intervention to improve the efficiency The preamble to the constitution states two of
of market operations. our national goals are to provide for the common
A second possibility for grounds for intervention defense and to " . promote the general
in the marketplace is that because of certain struc- welfare The first, in economic parlance, is a
tural conditions - massive economies of scale, etc. public good and these are largely supplied directly

by government, i.e., public management. The second centers on this criterion. Clearly regulation of private
class of goods operating under the usual assumptions firms in the public interest is an extremely complex
about markets in the United States has been provided problem, a problem not foreseen by those who
by the private sector of the economy constrained thought that the public interest would be protected
by a competitive market system. Our national objec- if the railroads could be tamed by the creation of
tive or social welfare function is Pareto Optimality, the I.C.C.
which, crudely put, suggests that if by a change
someone is made better off while no one is injured
the system is optimal. Distribution
Let us keep Pareto Optimality in mind as a goal The distribution criteria in legal terms implies
while we exan-dne specific economic activity, assum- equity. For instance, the basic justification of
ing we have g riounds for intervention, based upon our progressive income tax is equity (fairness)
clearly identifiable correctable defects in the market and the idea of a minimum consumption level is
system, i.e., our assumption of competition in the inherent in our social security programs. But despite
market place is violated by a structural condition, not the general concern with equity the public does not
by some common law conspiracy by producers have any specific income distribution pattern in mind
attempting to escape the rigors of competition, a when it considers fairness. However, all or almost all
condition which the antitrust laws should rectify. intervention in the private sector, from monetary
policy to a school lunch program, affects income
Criteria for Intervention: Allocation distribution. This is a key point: one must consider
the distribution implication of public management
The public demands two types of goods: (1) those and intervention - e.g.,the quarrel between the
supplied by the private sector in response to public environmentalists and the oil companies is a conflict
demand as expressed in the market place, i.e., as of two goals, creation of public good with benefits
consumers indicate their preferences, by voting their diffused to all versus profit maximization under the
dollars; (2) those goods which cannot be supplied or market system where benefits are generalized by
traditionally have not been supplied by the private price companies.
sector-defense, law enforcement, and conservation,
that euphemism for fisheries management. Stabilization
Under the allocation criteria for intervention,
the important questions involve how much of the Monetary and fiscal policy involves tax rates,
second type of goods should be supplied to the market, interest rates, etc., and they are the obvious illustra-
since demand is not directly observable - i.e., tions of stabilization policies. These policies have
measurable. in general the criterion for supplying important allocation and distribution effects. The
both types of goods is the same: the opportunity cost current struggle between liberals and the Federal
Of resources allocated to the public sector should not Reserve over our current monetary growth is a case
exceed the value of the goods produced to meet the in point. If the target is raised and money made
public sector demand. easier, presumably unemployment would be reduced
More simply put, the free lunch is never free and income distribution improved - possibly at a
and therefore the real cost of public goods must be cost of a greater rate of inflation.
considered relative to other possible production.
This criterion is a useful guide, but it does not
answer a number of key questions, i.e., is it better The Fishery Act of 1976
to have public management supply municipal water These interrelationships between allocation
or is it better to have a regulated private monopoly distribution and stabilization can be spelled out in
as the water company. formal theory. Given these tools, what can we say
The question currently so much in the public about intervention, in the public management of
mind of the value of regulation and deregulation ocean activity, specifically with reference to the

Fishery Act of 1976? Let us begin with a relevant now. The history of the Alaska salmon fishery, which
quotation from Adam Smith. continually struggled to extend each season to make
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for a profit, is a good illustration of these pressures.
merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a con- A monopolist with control of sjupply can take a larger
spiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise view, while the government may consider the general
prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by
welfare view. Divorced from immediate pressures,
any law which either could be executed, or would be con-
sistent with liberty,and justice. But though the law cannot management in the public interest can consider
hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling . many more relationships, such as the needs of future
together, it ought to do nothing toIfacilitate such assemblies generations, in arriving at decisions about what to
much less render them necessary. produce and when to do it.
The quotation indicates that competition regu- Therefore, we may conclude that a goal of public
lated by the market is the structure that will yield management is to maximize the welfare of the citizens
our optimal solution. Conspiracy against the public and, if possible within this framework, assist the needs
interest equivalent to monopoly raises prices by of the producers. Unfortunately, time does not permit
reducing the quantily of output and has important examination of a host of particular problems that
income distribution effects. . arise under the act. Let me list just three: (1) potential
We note that Smith is talking about a market, policy conflicts between regional councils; (2) poten-
and also that in the development of any country or tial policy conflicts between particular councils and
economic system the size of the market is important. the department of state, and potential conflict within
Assumptions about markets are that factor mobility each council between commercial and sports fishing
and price flexibility will iron out regional and sec- interests; (3) the adequacy of the new structure to
tional differences and that the general welfare has carry out the complex research necessary for effective
precedence over particular interests. public interest fisheries mana gement.
We note with some trepidation, therefore, that
the 1976 Act creates a management structure com- Notes
posed of local interests. For the moment, we may
ignore whether they are local producers or con- 1. Adam Smith, Yhe Wealth of Nations, Cannan, ed., Book 1, p. 28.
sumers.
It is legitimate to be concerned about local
issues - e.g., local school boards, local police
and fire protection, etc. - but it is not so legitimate
when the output from local economic activity is sold
in a national market, e.g., fish. This is true since
all consumers in the national market are affected by
local decisions. If, furthermore, the local interests
represented are primarily producers, the model fits
the conditions so vividly described by Smith two
hundred years ago.
Decisions made to protect local producers may
yield lower real income for consumers by raising
prices for an element in the food supply. There are
other issues that become important if management
reverts to the local level. The question of the time
horizons of different interests is important. By and
large, individual producers, particularly if they are
small firms under financial pressure, have the short-
est time horizon. Their production decisions focus
on the short-run need to survive, to make profit right

Federal Mechanisms for Management

Robert W. Niblock
Program Manager, OTA Oceans Program, U.S. Congress

Only yesterday did I finally learn what coastal A minimum need at this time is a comprehensive,
belts are, or at least I was able to get some general long-term planning program, which is built on strong
feel for what people, were talking about when they policy foundations and is pursued on a continuing
mentioned the term. Today I have several general basis. We have all seen various commissions and
thoughts on the topic. councils related to management issues, and we
Yesterday you heard some logical explanations continuously hear that something dynamic must be
of how various laws passed in recent years melded done. Long-term planning for the coastal belt should
into something that we might describe as an overall be carried out primarily at the federal level, although
scheme for the coastal belt. Within this framework implementation of the plan may be blocked at all
it seems to me that there are two elements of judg- levels of government.
ment about management effectiveness which are I think that the Coastal Zone Management Act
difficult to cope with. The one is our limited expeT- and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act
ience in implementing legislation. provide interacting models for planning and decision-
A second element is that coastal belt manage- making. I do feel that more experience is needed
ment to date has largely been carried out on a piece- with these pieces of legislation before we begin to
meal basis, with the result that overall goals and make any sorts of judgments as to how effectively
objectives are not agreed upon at the federal level, they have been planned and implemented. I think
or possibly at any other levels. I think that com- that the use of offshore oil and gas resources repre-
prehensive management, on the scale that we are sents another area of need for federal management,
discussing here,. has bogged down, although this is although at present no office, public or private, is
understandable when we consider some of the basic responsible for analyzing policy on developing pro-
groups involved in the management process. We have grams for ocean use on a comprehensive scale, which
a variety of federal agencies, state and local govern- take these resource uses and other interests into
ments, regional agencies, and traditional industries, account A number of recent studies have found
such as oil and gas shippers, shipbuilders, and the increasing interest in using the oceans for industrial
fishing industry. When you consider the complexity and energy purposes. these same studies have also
of the issues, and the general enormity of the task, found no mechanisms for assessing these uses, for
the obvious questions come to mind: Is the under- analyzing potential conflicts among them, and for
taking possible at all, and aye the overall benefits recommending priorities of use in future federal
to society worth the costs? Beyond these is the issue policy. The eventual forms these mechanisms for
of the mechanisr@s to be used in coastal zone ocean planning and ocean use take could perhaps be
management. At the very least, some of these mech- a loosely structured federal, state, and local coordi-
anisms have already been put into operation through nating agency with overall responsibility for handling
the federal coastal zone management programs. coastal belt activities.

Regional Mechanisms for Management

Frank Gregg

Chairman, New England River Basins Commission

I might offer a quote of my own from Leslie New England has all kinds of regional mechanisms
Corbit, an official of the Pacific Gas and Electric which are influencing coastal zone decisions every
Company and Planning Director of the State of day. The problem is not whether there is a regional
California, who addressed a meeting in Williamsburg, mechanism, the problem is in remembering the
Virginia, in the fall of 1968. At the meeting, when initials of all the regional mechanisms we now have.
the need for a coastal zone program was mentioned, The governors meet and deliberate on a regional
he said, "If you marine scientists think that you basis on top-policy provisions for ocean manage-
are going to change the power structure of the United ment A case in point is their energy policy state-
States because 80 percent of the political officials ments of a couple of years ago which particularly
allegedly own some part of their time in eastern endorsed the expansion of nuclear base loads. The
systems, you are out of your skulls." governors run on a regional economy and they look
I think that one of the problems we are dealing specifically at transportation, energy, and economic
with here is that people who are knowledgeable development. The River Basin Commission, which I
about, or care deeply about, the coastal and marine run, tries to address water and land issues and
environment would like to see the governmental makes recommendations as to how those problems
system restructured to reflect the unique conflict ought to be solved. This work includes establishing
of interests and concerns in relationships that arise priorities for federal investments and for the activities
in the coastal and near-shore environment. I also of federal agencies in the river basin, including the
think our expectations tend to be unrealistic, and coastal areas. We work very closely with the coastal
I mean to offer several observations in support of this zoning groups to get their advice on matters which
belief. Basically, however, I would like to do three we ought to be recommending. Each federal agency
things. One concerns the plan I just talked about, has an office in this region, as well as mechanisms
the regional management of coastal resources. Such for getting the agencies together and for interacting
management is meant to be a focal point which among them. We have here in New England a
everybody agrees to refer to, where conflicts are Regional Organization for Economic Development,
going to be rated against one another, where serious the Reserve Bank gives regional talks about coastal
evaluations are going to be made, and where deci- management, and the Sierra Club is concerned about
sions are going to be made and implemented. But I regional matters.
feel that such regional management is not going to If we restate the question and ask: Are we
happen at this time, nor should it happen. There interested in the region being addressed as a single
is no general purpose government now at the state unit, and in providing information about the regional
and regional level, and no accountability for interest to institutions which have direct manage-
regional management decisions. ment authority? then the answer is yes. There is a
The second point I would like to make is that great deal of regional activity going on, and I would

like to give you a couple of tangible results of these
activities. New England was well-equipped in
advance concerning the O.C.S. issues that started
back in 1972. We have impressed the Bureau of Land
Management with the sophistication of the state
people in this region, who argue with the Bureau of
Land Management about every conceivable detail.
This is how the O.C.S. process takes place, and the
same situation exists with respect to the level of
sophistication so far as other decisions are con-
cerned which have an impact on the region. We could
take the River Basin Commission itself, which is
getting started on a regional port study containing
recommendations for a regional port system. The
commission recently issued a fisheries, oil, and gas
study, as well as an offshore pipeline study, and the
Corps of Engineers has recently asked the com-
mission to work with them on coordinating dredging
activities in the region.
In order to help stimulate discussion, let me
repeat that I do not believe we are going to get a
strong institutional structure at the multistate IeVel,
but that we should approach the management of
coastal resources from a regional perspective utiliz-
ing many agencies at the state, regional, and federal
levels.

State Mechanisms for Management

Lois Ewen

Vice-Chairman, California Coastal Commission

California coastal planning was born of citizen looks much like the old, with one important differ-
effort after years of frustration at the legislative level ence: management of the coast will pass into the
to initiate responsive government action to protect hands of local government as each of the more than
California's endangered coastal resources. The fore- sixty-nine local entities prepares its local programs
runner to the present legislation was the Bay Con- in conformance with the policies and criteria of the
servation Development Commission, established in Act. Additional legislation governing the coastal pro-
the 1960s to manage the resources of San Francisco gram includes a bill to protect wetland areas, a state
Bay. bond to acquire land for urban and coastal park use,
The California coast is 1072 miles long, includ- a bill that establishes a conservancy agency man-
ing 387 miles of offshore island shoreline. The coast dated to acquire and restore degraded lands, includ-
is diversified - from the rich, damp redwood forests, ing wetlands, but whose primary thrust is to initiate
long pastoral meadows, rocky coves and headlands of "innovative" planning mechanisms.
the north, to the highly urbanized and industrialized The issues in California (as in all coastal a-teas)
areas of Southern California. But the north, like are extremely complex: large-scale energy produc-
the south, is coming under intense land-use tion, development, and distribution, including
pressures. transport and delivery of Alaskan oil and gas; poten-
All the complex problems of land-use planning tial construction of liquefied natural gas facilities
and management exist on the California coast, where and increased offshore oil drilling; limited public
85 percent of our 21 million people live. Sixty-nine access to the coastline; second home build-out; the
local governments exist within the present coastal need to protect coastal agricultural lands from
zone boundary: fifteen counties, fifty-four cities, increasing pressures of development;the preservation
and numerous special districts. A significant portion of wetlands and habitats; the expanded development
of the state's economy ties within the coastal zone. of ports and industry; and coastal recreation -
A citizen initiative in 1972, Proposition 20 on the whose, and how much?
California ballot, established a temporary four-year A speaker yesterday identified the problem of
state commission with six regional components, removing revenue- producing lands from the tax rolls,
whose charge was twofold: review development when such land is acquired for public use. This is
permits in the short-term, while a coastal manage- an issue being debated by government all over the
ment plan was developed for the long-term. Extensive country and the question may never be resolved
hearings were held statewide on the plan, prior to satisfactorily for all interests. But the state of
an equally extensive (and intensive) evaluation by California - through its coastal management pro-
the legislatuTe. The Coastal Act of 1976 was signed gram and other parkland acquisition efforts through-
into law by the governor in the summer of 1976. out the state - has decided that this is an obligation
The framework of the new management system it will assume for the greater benefit and good of all

citizens by providing a -resource for all citizens, issues of Alaskan oil and gas, increased offshore
not just those with special interests and needs. drilling or the seeming "either-or" choice of the
I have been asked to comment on the advantages present administration's proposed energy program,
of state land use decision-making versus local which advocates use of nuclear or coal capabilities.
decision-making. Coastal management in California We agree that we must bear our share of energy
evolved as the direct result of incremental and distribution responsibilities and we accept the
fragmented policy decisions dictated by local poli- criticism heard in some quarters that California has
tical boundaries and special interests that did not thrown up roadblocks to a speedy resolution of the
respond to regional Or intraTegional needs. One can problem. It is true that we have adopted a "go slow"
only hope that the goals we have set for ourselves - attitude. But we have done so only to carry out
responsible local governmental implementation of responsive resource and land use management
management programs - will, in fact, be realistically practices that include a critical review of potential
possible. impacts associated with environmental, health, and
In addition to guiding local government in the growth-inducing concerns.
development and certification of such programs, the Resource allocation is another issue confronting
State Commission is mandated to prepare programs California's coastal management efforts - the
and studies in conjunction with other state agencies, equitable balancing of uses between competing
dealing with such varied issues as power-plant siting interests. How to accommodate people's needs and
and the siting of liquefied natural gas facilities strike the appropriate compromise between private
and forestry management. One of the "plusses" of the and public uses of the coast? Or the fine-tune imple-
entire coastal management effort in California is the mentation of consistency between various political
attempt to coordinate the plethora of conflicting boundaries? These are all problems of extreme com-
objectives and actions of state and federal agencies. plexity, as I am sure you will agree.
The attempt has yet to be put to a real test, however, But we are proud of our accomplishments, too.
though expectations remain high. We have succeeded in arousing citizen awareness
Of course, there are problems, and there will of the need for resource -conservation and protection.
continue to be problems in the future. Monitoring We have increased public access to beaches and
and enforcement of local government implementa- tidelands granted to our citizens under the California
tion of coastal programs - the need to see that Constitution. We have initiated interagency dialogue
local government is carrying out its responsibilities and the beginnings of what we truly hope are co-
under the Act - will be a continuing problem, in ordinated goal objectives on a local, regional, state
some instances. Citizen advocacy is crucial in this and federal level.
effort! Paramount, too, is the question of "federal And perhaps most important of all, we have been
consistency": Will it work? Some of us, in looking at able to effect' expanded citizen input into the
the past track record of federal government, are decision-making process, into decisions directly
skeptical. But the federal government has undertaken affecting citizens and their health and welfare. No
an extensive commitment toward the management other program in California's history has benefited
and protection of coastal resources and we can only as much from public involvement.
hope it means it. We would hope, too, that the federal Should we attempt to do "social engineering," to
government will look at interagency policies and answer many of society's ills through such a manage-
regulatory authority, as we in California have done, ment system? To provide housing opportunities for
and will stand by the commitment to coordinate the low. and moderate income, for example? Many
efforts toward achieving this goal. think not, yet in attempting to deal with the greater
The problem of "national interest" - what is it? public benefit and good versus the special interest,
who defines it? - is another worry. What does the private rights issue, the state has, -rightly or wrongly,
clause in the federal management act really mean in made a commitment to a broader public policy, one
terms of energy development, production, and distri- that accepts the obligations of responsive and
bution, for example? California will very quickly have responsible goal objectives in decision- making.
the opportunity to judge for itself when confronting Will it work? Time will tell.
the afo/ementioned energy supply and distribution

Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Com-
pensation Legislation

Barbara D. Burke

Director of Legislation, American Institute of Merchant Shipping

The entire maritime industry is deeply concerned stance completely outside the spiller's control. The
over the increasing proliferation of federal and state comprehensive legislation which we support fairly
laws on liability and compensation for damages allocates, between oil handlers and oil owners, the
arising from spills of petroleum oil. The result has risk of pollution from a commodity which must be
been a legal moyass which deters victims of oil moved to meet a national need.
pollution damage from obtaining the relief to which This legislation would ensure that no person,
they are entitled, burdens commerce, and adds un- corporation, or governmental entity damaged by an
necessarily to consumer costs. oil spill goes without fair and expeditious com-
The American Institute of Merchant Shipping pensation. A brief description of the patchwork of
(AIMS) believes that those involved in the production federal, state, and common law which has been
and handling of oil should share responsibility for all evolving due to legitimate concern for protecting the
proven economic losses, not just government clean- marine environment will reveal wasteful duplication,
up costs, which may result from oil pollution, to confusing overlap and seriou's gaps in coverage.
the extent the U.S. has jurisdiction. Obviously, those The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
handling oil - whether they be vessels or facilities (FWPCA) makes the owner or operator of a vessel
- should have "front line" responsibility for cleaning which is the source of a spill strictly liable for
up a spill and offering compensation to those who the governments cleanup expenses, up to a limit of
suffer damage. However, the vast majority of these $100 per gross registered ton (GRT) of his vessel,
vessels and facilities are owned by independent with a $14 million ceiling; facilities are similarly
companies which would be unduly burdened if they liable, up to $8 million. This law provides four
were not allowed reasonable and clearly defined limits defenses, unless the owner or operator's gross negli-
on their liability. We believe that as a general rule, gence caused the spill, in which case liability is
owners and operators should be in a position to insure unlimited. Federal and qualified state government,
against a potential polluting incident arising from cleanup expenditures are covered by a $35 million
their particular vessel or facility. The liability limit revolving fund, into which fines and other monies
of such an owner or operator should, as nearly as recouped from vessel or facility owners are
possible, be equal to the cost reasonably anticipated deposited.
to arise from his own potential spill. Oil cargo owners, Since the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
on the other hand, should contribute on a risk basis deals only with cleanup costs and not the other two
to a supplementary fund which would be used to categories of oil pollution damage - namely, third-
back up a spiller and provide relief to claimants in party claims and natural resources injuries - a series
those extraordinary cases where the spiller cannot be of federal and state laws have been enacted in recent
identified, when the spiller's liability limit is exceed- years in an attempt to ensure compensation for these
ed, or when the accident was caused by a circurn- other damages. These laws are usually tied, to the

geographical location of an oil spill or the source Another example should adequately illustrate
of the oil which caused the spill. that a piecemeal approach to liability and compen-
. On the federal level, in addition to the FWPCA, sation for oil pollution damage is not the proper
we have the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act one, Both California and Alaska have their own oil-.
(TAPS) and the Deepwater Ports Act, all of which spill laws. Alaska is now preparing regulations to
prescribe strict liability for oil-pollution damage. charge oil handlers (vessels and facilities) an insur-
The TAPS law covers damage from the Alaskan pipe- ance premium, called a "risk avoidance charge,"
line oil, with vessel liability of $14 million and a to build a compensation fund. California repeatedly
back-up fund of $ 100 million, built by a 5C per barrel proposes to amend its law to build a fund from a tax
fee on that oil. The Deepwater Ports law covers on each barrel of oil transferred in the state. Most
damages from oil spilled in a prescribed "safety of the oil which might pollute the waters of those
zone" with liability for a vessel not moored at the states will also be covered by the $ 100 million com-
port set at $150 per GRT and a backup fund of $ 100 pensation fund set up by the TAPS Act, under which
million, built by a 2C per barrel fee on oil received separate certificates o 'f financial responsibility are
at a deepwater port. being required. If nothing is done to change these
Presently pending in Congress are proposed plans, each barrel of oil moving from Port Valdez to
amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands California could be taxed three times and insurance
Act, which would create another liability and com- coverage for those involved will become a worse
pensation scheme, this time to cover damage from oil legal and financial nightmare than is already the case.
spilled in connection. with OCS operations. Liability In summary, industry is burdened by trying to
of vessels and production facilities would be backed cope with all of the legal liabilities and funds in
up by a $200 million fund built by a 3(r per barrel the FWPCA, the TAPS law, the Deepwater Ports Act,
fee on that oil. the proposed fund for offshore oil development, and
Virtually all coastal states, and some noncoastal the laws of virtually all of the coastal states. -The
ones, either have their own oil pollution liability victim of oil pollution damage is faced with confusing
and compensation laws or are actively considering and potentially costly claims procedures and derives
legislation. As with the federal laws just described, no benefit whatsoever that could not be provided
each one differs in its approach, but none can fairly and expeditiously through comprehensive
effectively deal with a problem that involves inter- legislation. -Also, - the consumer of oil ultimately
state and foreign commerce. pays for most of the extra costs inherent in a frag-
An example of the inadequacy of existing laws mented approach. A sound solution is offered by the
is provided by the Argo Merchant which recently ran comprehensive legislation, which would triple the
aground and broke up off the coast of New England. existing federal liability level .for tankers and set
Fortunately, the oil from this ship was carried out levels for facilities ranging up to $5.0 million.
to sea by the currents and winds. Under 'the existing Those who oppose federal preemption of state
patchwork of federal and state statutes, common law laws have. , argued that if comprehensive federal
and industry agreements, if the oil had been driven legislation works as well as we believe it can, then
to Nantucket and Cape Cod or over the Georges Bank states will recognize that their citizens are thereby
fishing grounds, a claimant would have to rely on oil adequately protected and proceed to repeal their
companies' voluntary commitments or contend with liability laws and eliminate their funds and the
complex litigation. With comprehensive legislation agencies set up to administer them. AIMS views this
such as we are supporting today, the natural contention as politically, unrealistic. We recognize
resources under federal .or state jurisdiction (includ- the. difficulties inherent in this sensitive area but
ing fish since the Fishery Conservation and must strongly urge a prohibition on other liability..
Management Act took effect March 1, 1977) as well schemes and Other funds with their varied ap-
as all proven Property damage and other economic proaches to serving the purposes covered by this
losses would be covered under a simple admini- legislation. The consolidation of laws which we are
strative procedure. supporting would bring- under one comprehensive

'96

liability and compensation scheme spills of petro- Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Legislation
leum on inland and ocean waters under U.S. juris- Prepared by the American Institute of Merchant Shipping
diction, resulting from all sources including ships,
barges, terminals, pipelines, refineries, drilling rigs, Comprehensive oil pollution liability and compensation
production platforms, and deepwater ports. To place legislation now pending before Congress would replace the
present proliferation of federal, state and common law which
this proposed scheme on top of the present patch- fails to ensure that persons, corporations or governments
work of federal and state laws would only add to the damaged by an oil spill are fairly compensated.
problem instead of solving it. This legislation would create a replenishable national fund
raised by a simple per barrel tax of up to 3(V on oil received
AIMS believes that the source of a spill should by terminals for export or import or by refineries, with each
be given at least sixty days to try to settle damage barrel being taxed only once. The fund would be administered
claims voluntarily. Following the mandated report by the Department of Transportation with a minimum of bureau-
of a spill, the source of the spill should be required cracy to handle damage claims not settled voluntarily by the
piller (a vessel or facility) within sixty days. The fund would
to advertise his identity in accordance with regu- bse maintained at between $150 million and $200 million, but
lations. The advertising requirement should, how- there is really no limit on the amount of compe nsation that
,ever, be flexible enough to allow administrative can be paid for proven oil pollution damage due to the
authority to borrow from the U.S. Treasury.
discretion when potential claimants can be notified The patchwork of law which has evolved in recent years
by other means. deals inadequately with the three categories of oil pollution
I If a claim is not settled on the "front line" within damage - namely, cleanup costs, third party claims and natural
the allotted time, it should be adjudicated through a resources injuries. The result has been wasteful duplication in
some cases, confusing overlap in others, and still serious gaps
simple administrative process. If a proposed settle- in Coverage exist. The proposed legislation consolidates these
ment is disputed, the case could be referred for laws and fills the gaps without adding unnecessarily to the cost
decision to an administrative law judge or a special of "' to the consumer.
Supporters of this comprehensive approach believe that a
three-member panel, with rights to appeal protected. spiller's liability should be high enough to cover most spills,
Following adjudication, a replenishable national butalso insurable, and thata back-up compensation fund should
fund would be available for paying damages. This be available to take care of catastrophes. This approach fairly
allocates, between the handlers and the owners of the cargo,
fund would be raised by a simple per-barrel fee of the costs resulting from an oil spill. To have unnecessarily
up to 3C on oil received by terminals for export high liability on the spiller and a compensation fund would be
or import, or received by any refinery, except that redundant Trying to prevent spills through a punitive liability
each barrel would be taxed only once. The fund could system is not only ineffective but also unnecessary since other
laws have as their principal objective minimizing the risk of oil
be maintained at up to $200 million, but it should spills through safety regulation];s.
have authority to borrow from the U.S. Treasury in The proposed legislation would triple for tankers and
the unlikely event that the money on hand is in- ocean-going oil barges the $100 per gross registered ton level
of liability set in the 1970 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
sufficient. The fund should, of course, be initially (which covered Goverru-nent clean-up expenses only) and raise
available for cases in which the spiller is not known the $14 million ceiling to $30 million. Inland barges (certificated
or not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We believe that for service on rivers and bays) and vessels not carrying oil as
cargo would see their liability increased by 50 percent Facilities
the fund's only defenses should be an act of way would have liability levels ranging up to $50 million, depending
and negligence of the claimant. We also believe that on the risk they pose to the marine environment The right to
the fund should be under the same time constraint limit liability is conditioned on the absence of negligence
as the spiller, sixty days for example, to settle a on the part of the owner or operator of the vessel or facility.
Claims not settled voluntarily by the spiller within sixty
claim. Such a restriction is completely reasonable days for any reason, such as costs exceeded his liability limit
inasmuch as the time period does not begin until or the accident was caused by an act of war, God or someone
after the damage is discovered and assessed, and a else, would bring the fund into play. These claims would be
awarded after evaluation by a private adjuster (or possibly
claim is presented. However, there should be an federal or state personnel). Disputes on judgments would be
outside limit on claims of six years from the date referred to an administrative law judge or a special three-
of the incident which caused the damage. member panel, Rights to appeal are protected.
This simple administrative process is a vast improvement
We are optimistic that this legislation, which is over the existing legal morass which now faces victims of oil
in the best interests of all who are affected, will be pollution damage and thosehandling oil to meet this country's
enacted into law this year. I sincerely hope that energy needs.
vou will recognize its importance and lend your
support

List of Participants
ADEBOLU, Femi, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of CAMERON, Francis X., Geography and Marine Affairs, University
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
ALEXANDER, Lewis, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of CAMERON, Robert, Air Force Regional Civil Engineer, 630 San-
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. some St., San Francisco, CA 94111.
ALEXANDER, Timothy, NOAA/Coastal Zone Management, 3300 CANNON, Edward, U.S. Coast Guayd/U.S. Department of Trans-
Whitehaven St., N.W., Washington, DC. portation, Washington, DC.
ALLEN, Alice, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode CANOPASK, Peter, Graduate School of Oceanography, University
island, Kingston, RI 02881, of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
ANDERSON, Sue, Institute for Marine and Coastal Studies, COFFREY, Peter, Federal Power Commission/NYRO, 26 Federal
University of Southern California, 100 West Water St., Plaza, New York, NY 10007.
Wilmington, CA 90744. COLLINS, Clarkson, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of
ARMSTRONG, John, Coastal Zone Lab., University of Michigan, Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
1101 North University Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. CONRAD, Mr. and Mrs. Eric, Pennsylvania State University,
ASTHALTER, Jim, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of 1939 Millersville Pike, Lancaster, PA 17603.
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. DAVIS, Anne, Zoology Department, University of Rhode Island,
BASILE, Frank, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Kingston, RI 02881.
Management, New York Outer Continental Shelf Off ice, DAVIS, Robert, Planning Dept, City Hall, New Bedford, MA 02740
6 World Trade Center, Suite 6000, New York, NY.
BEAL, Amy Gray, Graduate School of Oceanography, University DAY, Alan, New York OCS Office, Bureau of Land Management,
of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. 6 World Trade Center. Room 600 D, New York, NY.
BECKWITH, Lee, N. Kingstown Chamber Development Office, DENNIS, Carol, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
P.O. Box 79, North Kingstown, RI 02852. Federal Activities, 401 "M" St., N.W., Washington, DC
20460.
BEDKER, Ervin, HW U.S. Air Force/PREV, the Pentagon, Washing- DEVANNEY, John, Ocean Engineering Department, Building
ton, DC 20330. 5-207, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Mas-
BENOIT, Richard, Ecoscience Laboratory, 490 Main St., Norwich, sachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139.
CT 06360.
BERRY, Wendell Jr., Normandeau Associates, Inc., Nashua Road, DEVEREAUX, John, 286 Beacon St., Boston, MA 02116.
Bedford, NH 03102. DI VENUTI, Robert, American Petroleum Institute, 2101 "L" St.,
BERRY, W.L., Shell Oil Co., P.O. Box 60193, New Orleans, LA N.W., Washington, DC 20037.
70160. DONAHUE, Kevin, Algonquin Gas Transmission, 1284 Soldiers
BIVONA, William, Marine Advisory Service, University of Rhode Field Rd., Boston, MA 02135.
island, Kingston, RI 02881. DONOVAN, Gerald, Resource Development, University of Rhode
BOCKRATH, Joseph, Sea Grant Legal Program, 52-60 Law Center' Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
Louisiana State University, Baton Route, LA 70803. DRYFOOS, Carol, Center for Ocean Management Studies, Uni-
BOHINC, Stanley, Air Force Regional Civil Engineer, Central versity of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
Region, 1200 Main St., Main Tower Building, Dallas, TX DUERR, Christy, Marine Advisory Service, University of Rhode
75202. Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
BOLEYN, Brenda, Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod, DUNN, Charlene Quinn, NEMAS/ Regional Coastal Information
438 Freeman's Way, Brewster, MA 02631. Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 0288 1.
BORAGINE, Ralph, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of DUNN, Larry, Resource Development, University of Rhode Island,
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. Kingston, RI 02881.
BORAGINE, Ruth, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of DYKSTRA, Jacob, Point Judith Fisherman's Cooperative, Box 730,
Rhode island, Kingston, RI 02881. Narragansett, RI 02882.
BOTZUM, John, Nautilus, 1056 National Press Building, Wash- ENGLE, Richard, Deputy District Civil Engineer, Philadelphia
ington, DC 20004. Naval Base, Philadelphia, PA 19112.
BOUSSU, Marvin, National Marine Fisheries Service, 191 Main ESTERLY, Henry, NYC Community College, 444 Kings Highway,
St., Gloucester, MA 01930. Tappan, NY 10983.
BROWN, Ralph, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631. EWEN, Lois, California Coastal Commission, 567 "B" Avenue,
BROWN, Robert, Animal Pathology, University of Rhode Island, Coronado, CA 92118.
1 Kingston, RI 02881. FACHE, Simon, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of
BURKE, Barbara, Director of Legislation, American Institute of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
Merchant Shipping, 1625 "K" St., N.W., Suite 1000, FALK, James, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of Rhode
Washington, DC 20006. Island, Kingston, RI 02881.

FEEHAN, Harry, NOAA/Office of Coastal Zone Management, JOSSI, Jack, National Marine Fisheries Service, RR7A, Box 522A,
3300 Whitehaven, Washington, DC 20235. South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882.
FERBER, Cornelia, New England River Basins Commission, S5 KEIFFER, Elisabeth, Marine Advisory Service, University of
Court St., Boston, MA 02108. Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
FINCH, William, Department of Geography, State University of KIENINGER, Karl, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of
New York, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222. International Fisheries, F4, Page 2, 3300 Whitehaven
FOLIT, Ruth, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of St., N.W., Washington, DC 20235.
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. KNAUSS, John, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
FRITSCHIE, Gustave, National Fisheries Institute, 1730 Penn-
sylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1150, Washington, DC. KNECHT, Robert, Office of Coastal Zone Management, 3300
GANDI, Dick, EASAMS Ltd., Manor House, London Road, Black- Whitehaven St., N.W., Washington, DC 20235.
water, Camberley, GU170AA Surry, England. KNIGHT, Harriet, South Carolina Coastal Council, 4 Carriage
Lane, Suite 205, Charleston, SC 29407.
GARVER, Joanna Durham, Marine Technology Society, Common
Ed. Potential of Oceans, 1442 Yellowood Ct., Reston, KOGA, Tatsumi, Specialist of Overseas Affairs, I I th Floor Nippon
VA 22090. Bldg., 6-2 Otemachi 2-Chome, Chujoda-K, T 100, Tokyo,
GATES, John, Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, Japan.
Kingston, RI 02881. KOSMARK, John, Graduate School of Oceanography, University
GOLLEYMORGAN, Ethnan, Marine Affairs, University of Rhode of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
Island, Kingston, RI 02881. KOVACIK, Charles, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
GRAY, Walter, Marine Advisory Service, University of Rhode 29208.
Island, Kingston, RI 02881. KRUG, Gene, Federal Energy Administration, Room 7112, 1200
GREGG, Frank, New England River Basins Commission, 55 Court Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20461.
St., Boston, MA 02108. LABAREE, Benjamin, Munson Institute, Mystic Seaport, Mystic,
CT 06355.
GRIGALUNAS, Thomas, Resource Economics, University of LAENDNER, Goeffrey, New York University, 8 Holst Drive,
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. Huntington, NY.
GUIMOND, Alan, Atlantic Offshore Fish and Lobster Associa- LAKEY, Keith, New England River Basin Commission, 55 Court
tion, Box 730, Narragansett, RI 02882. St, Boston, MA 02108.
HAGIST, Norma, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. LATOS, Cheryl, Box 375, Kingston, RI 02881.
HAMMERSCHLAG, Dieter, Community Planning and Area Devel- LAW, Ronald, I U.S. Coast Guard/Cons. Division, Eastern Divi-
opment, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 0288 1. sion, 1725 "K" St., N.W., Suite 204, Washington, DC
HARLIN, Marilyn, Botany Department, University of Rhode 20006.
Island, Kingston, RI 02881. LEOPOLD, Lawrence, Director UCS/MHS, U niversity of Southern
HARRINGTON, Daniel, Economic Development Administration, California, 100 West Water St., Wilmington, CA 907 44.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. LUTZ, Robert, McGeorge School of Law, University of the
HAWKINS, Cheryl, Environmental Protection Agency, 401."M" St., Pacific, 3200 5th Ave., Sacramento, CA' 95817.
S.W., WH-548, Washington, DC 20460. LYONS, John, Rhode Island Coastal Management Council, 83
HENNESSEY, Timothy, Political Science, University of Rhode Park St., Providence, RI 02903.
Island, Kingston, RI 02881. MANN, Roy, Roy Mann Associates, Inc., 180 Franklin St.,
HOLMSEN, Andreas, Resource Economics, University of Rhode Cambridge, MA 02139.
Island, Kingston, RI 02881. MANTZARIS, Christopher, National Marine Fisheries Service,
HOPKINS, F. P., U.S. Coast Guard, 150 Causeway St., Boston, 191 Main St., Gloucester, MA 01930.
MA 12114. MARR, Paul, Geography, State University of New York, New York
HOWARD, Beth, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of Sea Grant Institution, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany,
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. NY 12222.
HUGHES, Patricia, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management MARSHALL, Nelson, Graduate School of Oceanography, Uni-
Program, 100 Cambridge St., Boston, MA 02202. versitV of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
HUTCHINSON, Ken, Coordinator, New England Marine Advisory MATHEWS, Kent, U.S. Coast Guard, OCGD I (M), 150 Causeway
Service, New England Center for Continuing Education, St, Boston, MA 02114.
Durham, NH 03824. MATSUDA, Yoshiaki, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 573
JEFFRIES, Perry, Graduate School of Oceanography, University Woods Hole Rd., Woods Hole, MA 02543.
of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. McKENZIE, Sandy, Geography and Marine Affairs, University
JOHNSON, Milton, Chief, Special Studies Staff, Office of NOAA of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
Corps, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD MELAMID, Alexander, New York University, New York, NY 10003.
20852.

MINER, William, Coastal Resources Management Council, East SAVICK, Joseph, Department of Planning and Urban Develop.
Shore Road, Jamestown, RI 02835. ment, City Hall, 60 Commercial Way, East Providence,
MITCHELL, James, Environmental Resources, Cook College, RI 02914.
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08983. SCHNEIDER, Claudine, Coastal Resources Center, University of
MOTLEY, John, U.S. Department of Commerce, JFK Federal Rhode island, Kingston, RI 02881.
Building, Room E429, Boston, MA 02203. SCHNEIDER, Eric, Environmental Protection Agency, South
MUNTER, Florence, Environmental Protection Agency, Environ- Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882.
mental Impact Office, 2203 JFK Building, Boston, MA SCHOEN, Robert, U.S. Geological Survey, National Center 750,
02203. Reston, VA 22092.
NELSON, Stewart, Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy, SEAVEY, George, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode
Hoffman, 22,200 Stovall St., Alexandria, VA 22332. Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
NESBITT, Samuel, Fellows, Kee and Nesbitt, Main Street, SEYMOUR, John, Department of Management, Texas A & M Uni-
Bucksport, ME. versity, College Station, TX 77841.
NIBLOCK, Robert, Office of Technology Assessment, 119 "D" St., SLOAN, Lucy, National Federation of Fishermen, 38 Queen St.,
N.E., Room A 726, Washington, DC 20510. Cambridge, MA 02139.
NIXON, Dennis, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of SMITH, Les, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program,
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. 20th floor, 100 Cambridge St., Boston, MA 02202.
NIXON, Scott, Graduate School of Oceanography, University Of SMITH, Stanley, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. 06320.
NORTON, Virgil, Resource Economics, University of Rhode SORENSEN, Jens, Sea Grant Institute of Urban and Regional
Island, Kingston, RI 02881, Development, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
NYULASZI, Stephen, Chief Technical Assistant, U.S. Department SPAULDING, Irving, Resource Economics, University of Rhode
of Commerce, Philadelphia, PA. Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
O'CONNOR, Dennis, Ocean and Coastal Law Program, University SPAULDING, Malcolm, Ocean Engineering, University of Rhode
of Miami, School of Law, Coral Gables, FL 33124. Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
OLSEN, Stephen, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode SPIRO, Jim, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of Rhode
Island, Kingston, RI 02881. Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
OSBORN, Kenneth, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environ- STUBBS, Anne, RI Governor's Office, State House, Providence, RL
mental Assessment Division, 2001 Wisconsin Ave., TIPPIE, Virginia, Center for Ocean Management Studies, Uni-
N.W., Washington, DC 20235. versity of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
OVIATT, Candace, Graduate School of Oceanography, University TROTT, Edith, Northern Virginia Community College,
of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. Annandale, VA 22003.
PAVLOVICH, Bob, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 2401 "E" St., N.W., VIGIL, Max, HUD Region 1, Community Planning and Develop-
Columbia Plaza, Washington, DC 20441. ment, JFK Building, Boston, MA 02203.
PERRIN, Shepard, Louisiana Offshore Terminal Authority, WALTER, Robert B., 8 15 Lagoon Lane, Lantana, FL 33462.
Department of Transportation and Development, P.O. WEST, Niels, Geography and Marine Affairs, University of Rhode
Box 44245, Capitol Station, Room 202, Baton Rouge, Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
LA 70804. WEYGAND, Robert, Department of Planning and Urban Develop-
PONTECORVO, Giulio, Graduate School of Business, Columbia ment, City Hall, 60 Commercial Way, East Providence,
University, New York, NY 10027. RI 02914.
PRAGER, Anna, Town of South Kingstown, 66 High St., Wakefield, WILDERMANN, Richard, U.S. Coast Guard, 72 Thurston Terrace,
RI 02879. Glen Rock, NJ 07452.
PRAGER, Jan, Environmental Protection Agency, South Ferry WILSON, Mason, Ocean Engineering, University of Rhode Island,
Road, Narragansett, RI 02882. Kingston, RI 02881.
ROGERS, Carolyn, National Marine Fisheries Service, RR7A, WINBERRY, John, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
Box 522A, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882. 29208.
RORHOLM, Niels, Resource Development, University of Rhode WONG, Robert, Air Force Regional Civil Engineer, 526 Title
Island, Kingston, RI 02881. Building, 30 Pryor St., S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303.
ROSS, Neil, Marine Advisory Service, University of Rhode Island, WYNGAARD, Bruce, State University of New York SS-109
Kingston, RI 02881. Department of Geography, 1400 Washington Ave.,
ROTHSCHILD, Brian, National Marine Fisheries Service, Page I Albany, NY 12222.
Building, Wisconsin Ave., Washington, DC 20235. YAMHURE, Alvaro, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
RYNER, Peter, Travers Group, Inc., 530 W. 7th St., Travers City, Federal Activities, Washington, DC.
mi. ZEITLIN-HALE, Lynne, Coastal Resources Center, University of
SAINSBURY, John, Fisheries and Marine Technology, University Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.
of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.

100

---COASTAL MNE
19 T i P)!@; , . ., @ @; I I I
1 " ` A CZ 'T E R
Got

DATE DUE

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTEDINU.S.A.

3 668 4106 3968