Proceedings of the Ocean Studies Symposium, November, 1982

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

OCEAN STUDIES SYMPOSIUM

~~~~~~~~-~~~~~O-

GC~~~~~~~~~~~\
1 021~~~~~~~~~~~~'
.c2- - -
025 _ _ _ _ _ _ -~
1~~~~~~~ 982~

Proceedings of the

OCEAN STUDIES SYMPOSIUM

November, 1982

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

Edited by
VIRGINIA LYLE
Ocean Studies Project Director

Foreword by
MICHAEL L. FISCHER
Executive Director
- California Coastal Commission
and
E. C. FULLERTON
Director
California Department
of Fish and Game

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

This report was funded by
the William H. Donner Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and Chevron, USA

Property of CSC Library

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
Washington, D.C. 20230
1(2021 377-3111

In accordance with the provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we are enclosing for your review and
consideration the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce, on the proposed Maine
Coastal Zone Management Program.

Any written comments you may have should be submitted in duplicate to
the person listed below by June 12, 1978.

If you have any questions about the enclosed statement, please feel free
to contact:

Kathryn Cousins
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235
Telephone: 202/634-4235

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Deputy Ass stant ecretary
for Environmenil Affairs

Enclosure

Foreword

California's marine resources are extensive, diverse and extremely valuable, contri-
buting substantially to the economic and social well-being of people throughout the
state, the nation and the world. These assets encompass diverse plants and animals,
minerals, petroleum and other extractable, nonliving resources. Uses of California's
marine waters include fisheries, transportation, waste disposal, recreation and the
numerous aesthetic qualities we attribute to the ocean and its coastline.

During early settlement of the west coast of North America, demands on the ocean
and marine resources of California were limited primarily to coastal vessel traffic
and the harvesting of a rich variety of seafood and marine mammal products. At
that time, administrative and regulatory needs were few and therefore relatively
simple. Today, transportation and fishing continue to be two of the most economi-
cally important activities in the marine environment; in addition, there have been
major new demands on our limited ocean resources. This has resulted in a complex
system of local, state and federal government agencies to administer and regulate
the use and users of the marine resources.

In California, which has been a national leader in coastal management, the state
government agencies share assigned responsibility for protecting fish and wildlife,
maintaining water and air quality, developing mineral resources and controlling
coastal land uses.

Each agency - and every group that is interested in marine resources - has its
own view on how to best handle the issues with which it is most concerned. Yet
the future of the sea demands that we learn more about the ocean environment,
share our information and seek solutions that can advance our individual interests in
such a manner to best protect the ocean's resources. There must be statewide
recognition of, and consensus on, the need to protect the existing and potential
productivity and value of all ocean resources while achieving optimal potential
values from our extractable, nonliving resources.

With a grant from the William H. Donner Foundation, the California Coastal Com-
mission and the California Department of Fish and Game sponsored the Ocean
Studies Symposium in November 1982. The Symposium brought together representa-
tives from agencies and organizations concerned with ocean and coastal issues to
share information and discuss the problems of managing California's marine
resources. Participants included lawmakers, industrialists, academicians, administra-
tors, environmentalists, scientists, fishermen and many citizens who share a concern
for the ocean and its vast resources.

We believe that the Symposium was successful. It resulted in dozens of scientific
and policy-oriented papers and brought together for the first time in more than a
decade decision-makers and constituents from all relevant sectors. Because of time
constraints, the papers presented and discussions held could not cover all the issues
and points of view associated with California's marine resources. This report is not
a consensus on, nor comprehensive presentation of, all marine resource issues and
answers. It does, however, point out the increasing complexity of uses and issues
which need to be dealt with by government in cooperation with the public.

The Ocean Studies Symposium report is primarily intended to record the Symposium
itself and to serve as an initial source of material for use during the next phase of
an ongoing process. Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR 15), now being
considered by the State Legislature, directs the Joint Legislative Committee on
Fisheries and Aquaculture to analyze the Symposium report and develop a plan for
guaranteeing the wise use and management of California's marine resources. The
Coastal Commission and Department of Fish and Game, along with other state and
federal agencies, have worked diligently to establish a harmonious relationship
among ocean users. But without overall guidance on all aspects of ocean use and
management, individual agency decisions may result in issues being addressed in a
fragmented fashion.

The Coastal Commission and Department of Fish and Game now look forward with
interest to the result of the Joint Committee's efforts. We pledge assistance
towards the completion of that task, and we hope this report will prove a valuable
contribution.

Michael L. Fischer E. C. Fullerton
California Coastal Commission Department of Fish and Game

Acknowledgments

Virginia Lyle, director of the Ocean Studies Project, coordinated the contributions of
the large number of individuals and organizations involved in the different phases of
the project, organized the Ocean Studies Symposium, and edited this report.

Special acknowledgement is made to the following individuals:

Michael L. Fischer developed the study concept, obtained financial support and
provided continual guidance.

Susan Hansch, the Coastal Commission's marine resources specialist, was instrumental
to the entire project. Her advice, analytical skills and knowledge of the State's
marine resources issues and conflicts were a major contribution to the design of the
project, the Symposium and this report.

The efforts, concern and diligence of Dr. Frank H. Talbot, chairman of the
Moderator's Group, and the panel moderators, made the conference a success. The
eleven panel moderators who deserve special thanks for their very difficult task are:
John Temple Swing, Dr. Fred S. Conte, Dr. Elizabeth Venrick, Dr. Charles Woodhouse,
John Epting, Conrad G. Welling, Dr. Welton Lee, Dr. Don Walsh, Thomas Tobin, Dr.
Robert Freidheim and Michael B. Wilmar.

The major contribution was made by the 75 men and women who prepared a technical
or management policy paper for the Symposium. Those policy papers were the basis
of all Symposium discussion and this report.

David Sibbet was particularly valuable in providing advice during the design of the
conference, facilitating the Symposium panel discussions, making "wall-sized graphic
notes," and designing the cover of this report.

William J. Whalen was a most able chairman of the Symposium; as Executive Director
of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, he and his
organization provided invaluable assistance in administering the grant funds for the
project.

Dr. James W. Rote, consultant in the Assembly Office of Research, assisted .the
direction of the study with his technical advice and knowledge of national and state
marine resource issues.

The Symposium photographs were taken by Kati Corsaut, the Coastal Commission's
public affairs director.

Special thanks to the many others at the Coastal Commission and the Department of
Fish and Game who contributed to this project.

Financial support for the Ocean Studies Project was provided by the William H.
Donner Foundation. Additional funding for the publication of this report was
provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Chevron, USA.

The word processing was done by The Word Service, Berkeley. Graphic design and
layout by Mindy Richter of Richter & Tripp Associates. Printing by GRT Book
Printing, Oakland.

Contents

INTRODUCTION I

SECTION I: USES AND IMPORTANCE OF CALIFORNIA'S OCEAN RESOURCES 3

SECTION II: MAJOR MARINE RESOURCE ISSUES 21

SECTION III: RECOMMENDATIONS 43

CONCLUSION 49

APPENDICES

Appendix A: History of Ocean Studies Project and Symposium 51

Appendix B: Conference Panels and Graphics 57

Appendix C: Report of Panel Moderators' Chairman 97

Appendix D: Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 15 101

Appendix E: State and Federal Roles and Responsibilities 105

Appendix F: Members of Core Group 137

Appendix G: List of Policy Papers 141

Appendix H: Partial Attendance List. 151

OCEAN USES ,ndho

~~~~~~h~~~~~~~~~~ ..?X,� ~17j-~----'--~y~;
d-':~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~-~~-~ ~ , ~

.~.'. ~-. . . ' _ . :, ;:'-.

~, ~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~I�?i.~?;~

MARINE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L E C O SS T E

ZW~~~~~~~~~~~~~K

Introduction

These proceedings of the Ocean Studies Symposium are not meant to be all inclusive
nor a definitive analysis of California's marine resources and the State's future
management role. Rather this report is meant to present an overview of the Sympo-
sium and to touch on the many marine resource management issues and concerns
facing California and the nation's decision-makers. As man's use of the nearshore
ocean and its many resources increase, conflicts over the use and management of
these resources also increase. If careful planning and management methods are not
provided, there may be irreversible damage to some resource.

While state and federal government agencies work to provide the best management
possible, they often have piecemeal jurisdictions and fragmented responsibility for
enforcement and regulation of marine resource use. Also, each agency must respond
to the policies and objectives established for it and to the needs of its own constit-
uency group. If coordination of knowledge and efforts is not made and each group is
concerned only with its own particular interest, there easily could become a "I win,
you lose" situation over use and management of many ocean resources.

In the simplest terms, the purpose of the Ocean Study Project and Symposium was to
begin an "I win, you win" process. Representatives of all the marine resources
management agencies and constituency groups, the "vested interests", were invited to
the Symposium and offered the opportunity to talk with each other in an informal
manner, not as adversaries but as co-participants with equal standing in a learning
situation. The 250-plus Symposium participants were industry representatives, state,
local and federal government agency managers, researchers and academicians from
California's universities and colleges, national and state marine researchers,
environmentalists and members of the Legislature. During the three days of the
Symposium, each participant was exposed to something outside his/her own particular
technical expertise and area of concern.

The intent of the Symposium was not to present an exhaustive study of the re-
sources, issues and conflicts that face California's managers and users of the near-
shore ocean resources. There was no attempt to provide in-depth analysis of tech-
nical data, to influence political decision-making processes or to respond to those
emotional concerns common to all constituency groups. The sole purpose of the
Symposium was to start communication among the diverse groups to allow for infor-
mation exchange on a variety of subjects not normally considered by those working in
specialty fields and to provide fresh insight in the earliest stage of a State planning
process.

The Symposium was crowded with long, intense sessions and an abundance of infor-
mation. The participants were there to learn, discuss and argue over uses, conflicts
and potential solutions to California's marine resource management issues. These
participants were the first players in an ongoing process to determine the most
effective use, allocation and management of the State's invaluable ocean resources.

This Symposium was a first step for the State of California. For its citizens, law-
makers, regulatory agency managers and industries to look at the ocean as a
"commons" with many, often conflicting uses and to realize that its resources are
finite even though the ocean has long been considered vast and limitless. If careful
thought and planning doesn't start now, the opportunity may be lost. Future genera-

tions will not have as many options for management, nor so many resources avail-
able, if concerns are not dealt with and judgement is not used today.

The first section of this report outlines the uses and benefits Californians receive
from the ocean. Ibis section is not definitive, but it attempts to paint a broad
picture of the resources, their uses and economic benefits to the State.

The second section describes the resource issues, conflicts, areas needing resolution
and suggestions for potential solutions discussed at the Ocean Studies Symposium. An
attempt is made to provide an overview of the Symposium, the panel presentations
and the discussions, whether during formal question and answer periods or around a
coffee pot. Not every presentation or discussion topic from the Symposium is includ-
ed, nor is every area of concern in ocean resource management identified, but a
sense of the variety and complexity of issues should emerge.

Both the first and second sections draw on the policy papers and technical presen-
tations made during the Symposium. The material presented here is gleaned from
those sources; however, specific credit for ideas, statistics or quotations is not given.

The third section contains the suggestions and recommendations for future action
made by the core group, the focus of the Symposium's efforts. The thirty-member
core group did not call for formal action by the Legislature or a state agency but
made general recommendations and suggestions for needed policy determination.

The core group and the other participants at the Ocean Studies Symposium were the
first step of an ongoing process to determine the future role of the State of Cali-
fornia in marine resources management. A process with many players that will
continue over the next years to work and decide together on each component of an
eventual plan to best manage the State's ocean resources.

Section I

USES AND IMPORTANCE OF CALIFORNIA'S

OCEAN RESOURCES

The Pacific Ocean bordering California's 1,100-mile coast provides a wealth of natu-
ral resources and beneficial uses to the citizens of the State and to the entire
nation. The ocean's cornucopia contains both living and nonliving, renewable and
non-renewable, extractable resources. Commercial and sport fishermen take numerous
marine species from nearshore and offshore waters for profit and pleasure. The
saltwater of the sea and brackish-waters of bays and estuaries offer a medium for
cultivating many of these species through mariculture activities. Marine mammals
and seabirds, while not presently exploited commercially, abound in and around Pa-
cific waters, providing enjoyment for nature lovers and filling important niches in the
marine ecosystem.

Nonliving resources extracted from the sea include energy supplies, minerals, and a
potential source of freshwater. As land based oil, natural gas, mineral, and water
supplies diminish, these resources of the sea become all the more important to the
nation's economy and general well-being.

At the same time, this vast water body serves as a repository for every conceivable
form of modern man's waste. Some waste material enters the ocean by way of
atmospheric fallout and river runoff while other forms of pollution, such as oil spills
from tanker groundings and collisions, are accidental. The bulk of material discarded
into the ocean, however, is done so intentionally. Opinions on the capacity of the
ocean to assimilate wastes currently differ; under existing regulations the ocean
continues to be used for the accommodation of domestic, industrial, thermal and
radioactive wastes, and other toxic materials. As land fill sites become more scarce,
the ocean will also become more attractive as a dumping ground for sewage sludge
and solid waste.

Just as the railroads and freeways of the land provide vital transportation links, the
Pacific Ocean serves as a major highway for commerce. California ports handle
billions of dollars of imports and exports annually. Shipping lanes close to shore
provide safe transit for thousands of vessels, critical to the maritime industry of the
State, the nation, and the world.

While the ocean provides many material benefits, perhaps the recreational uses of the
sea will be of greater importance in the future. The Pacific serves as a playground
for millions of California residents and visitors, who enjoy, among other things,
sailing, surfing, swimming, sunbathing, skin and scuba diving, sport fishing and water
skiing. Some people simply choose to stand on the beach and watch the beauty and
power of the sea.

Another important aspect of the ocean is its influence on climate and weather. The
State's renowned moderate climate is partially due to the California Current, which
acts as a giant air conditioner on the offshore winds. The ocean is not always so
generous, and it can be the source of damaging storm waves, shoreline erosion, lack
of rainfall in southern California, summer fogs in central and northern California,
temperature inversions which lead to smog conditions, and saltwater intrusion in
onshore freshwater aquifers.

A long-term program of oceanographic research could provide economic benefits in
savings in the costs of goods and services and increases in production. Although
most marine science research is funded at the federal level, California, with its
network of outstanding academic institutions and an infrastructure of industrial
technology, is at the forefront in delving into the untold mysteries of the sea. In
the mid-1960's it was estimated by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on

Oceanography that the value of benefits, over a twenty-year period, directly attribu-
table to oceanographic research would be four to five times the expenditures.

Finally, the economic value of the multiple uses of the sea, if calculated, would
reach trillions of dollars. The value of many of the amenities, as well as the use of
the ocean for military operations, is unquantifiable. The following section attempts
to document the value and importance of California's major marine resources and
various uses of the ocean. This material is extracted from the policy papers, panel-
ist presentations and discussions during the November 1982 Ocean Studies Symposium.

LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

Commercial Fishing

Landing records provide basic information on the amount and values of marine re-
sources taken by California's commercial fishermen. Department of Fish and Game
records show that fishermen landed 780 million pounds of fish and shellfish from
California waters, worth $280 million (dockside or ex-vessel value) in 1981.

The commercial fishing industry is important to the State of California in many ways,
for its economic impact, as a source of food, and as a source of employment in
coastal communities. In many coastal communities, commercial fishing is a mainstay
of the economy, with boat construction and repair yards, gear and rigging stores, and
fish processors all depending on a healthy fishing industry. The eventual value of
fish and shellfish landings to the State's economy increases three to four times when
economic multipliers are considered.

Salmon is one of the State's most valuable commercial fishery resources and is de-
pendent on conditions in both the marine environment and inland waters. Public fish
hatcheries and related programs have been crucial in supporting this fishery. Pre-
liminary estimates indicate between 30 and 40 percent of California's commercial
salmon landings in recent decades are hatchery produced. Salmon landings in Califor-
nia have averaged 6.6 million pounds per year since 1956, with an all-time high of
11.3 million pounds landed in 1956 and a low of 4.1 million pounds in 1958. Ac-
cording to the National Marine Fisheries Service, salmon was the second most impor-
tant fishery resource in the United States in 1981. Salmon landings for 1982 were
predicted at approximately 8.0 million pounds. The average ex-vessel value of the
California commercial salmon fishery is about. $12 million. This value was approxi-
mately $20 million in 1982, which was a very good year.

Recreational Fishing

Marine anglers enjoy a variety of sport fishing opportunities along the California
coast. They regularly fish from open beaches, public piers, jetties, private boats and
charter boats. Recreationists also enjoy ocean diving for fish, mollusks and crus-
taceans, and many clam on open beaches and in protected bays.

These activities have not only a tremendous positive impact on California's economy,
but also represent an extremely important contribution to recreational opportunities
available to California residents and out-of-state visitors. For instance, Department
of Fish and Game records indicate that, during 1980, 761,000 anglers fishing from 303
commercial passenger fishing vessels captured a reported 6,407,949 fish from marine
waters. Department records further indicate that anglers fishing from private boats
in southern California alone spent 2,178,210 hours on fishing trips catching an
estimated 962,479 fish in 1981.

While current estimates of the overall economic contribution of recreational fishing
are unavailable, values for 1970 can be found in "A Socio-Economic Analysis of
California's Sport and Commercial Industries", Gruen and Gruen. They estimate that
the primary net economic value of marine sport fishing in California during 1970 was
$24-$47 million and estimated that the secondary economic value based on gross
expenditures of sport fishermen in California during 1970 was approximately $110
million. It is unknown what current estimates might be using similar methodology;
however, given the inflation rates of the past decade, figures could be expected to
be substantially higher.

North Spit, Samoa, Humboldt County
� 1982, California Coastal Commission; reprinted from the California Coastal Access Guide,
Revised Edition, Special Commemorative Issue.

Aquaculture

Aquaculture is generally defined as the culture or propagation of plants and animals
in fresh, brackish or salt water. The term mariculture is used for aquaculture
activities only in a saltwater medium.

California aquaculture exists today as a viable contributor to the State's economy and
the State is a national leader in aquatic food production. Already over 30 different
kinds of plants and animals are being cultured or are in advanced stages of research
and development. In addition to such species as trout, catfish, bait fish, tubifex
worms, ornamental fish, crayfish, carp and oysters, where cultural techniques are
reasonably well developed, species seriously being investigated are abalone, salmon,
sunfish, scallops, clams, mussels, lobsters, bull frogs, turtles, striped bass, sturgeon,
algae, kelp and other aquatic plants. The diversity of species with the capacity for
culture within the State gives California the potential of becoming the nation's leader
in aquatic production.

Many of the techniques of marine aquaculture have already been developed, as exem-
plified by the public salmon hatchery system and the 125-year-old oyster industry,
whose production in California waters is supported entirely by planted seed. The
contribution of hatchery-produced salmon to the total ocean production is not cur-
rently known. Existing data indicates the contribution may be in the neighborhood of
40 percent.

* in iii

I iSBN II

Scripps Pier, San Diego County
� 1982, California Coastal Commission;
reprinted from the California Coastal
Access Guide, Revised Edition, Special
Commemorative Issue.

The private aquaculture industry in California produced approximately six million
pounds of products in 1982. The bulk of this production was in freshwater species,
with two and one-quarter million pounds of trout, and one and one-quarter million
pounds of catfish. Bait fish, ornamental fish, sunfish, frogs and crayfish account for
the remainder of the freshwater production. Approximately one million pounds of the
six million pound total was shellfish. The potential for significant economic growth
in the emerging mariculture industry is based on the culture of abalone, mussels,
clams, scallops, marine algae and finfish.

To illustrate this economic potential, in the United States, abalone are found only
along the Pacific coast. They were originally fished commercially only in California,
although fisheries and aquaculture development efforts have recently begun in Oregon,
Washington and Alaska, as well as Canada. Historically, the California fishery has
focused on the red abalone Haliotis rufescens, the largest of the world's eighty
species. As stocks of this species have become depleted, fisheries and aquaculture
interests have transferred, in part, to other species, particularly those adapted to the
warmer waters in the southern part of the State. Worldwide demand for abalone has
risen steadily in recent years, driving retail prices to their present high levels of
$20-$30 per pound. Annual production of abalone from commercial fisheries in
California is presently about one million pounds per year, making this a very lucra-
tive business. Industry spokesmen estimate Japanese markets for small-sized abalone
produced by mariculture will bring close to $50 per pound.

Marine phytoplankton are the primary forage of the oceans and are the base for
many marine food chains. Seaweeds, which are more complex forms of marine algae,
are also consumed by humans or used by industry in the manufacture of hundreds of
products. Most seaweeds used in the United States are not consumed directly as
food but as extracts used in the manufacture of biomedical products, household
commodities and foods. Seaweed extracts (phycocolloids) have found their way into
nearly all types of everyday products including toothpaste, cosmetics, shampoo, baby
foods, milk products, beer-making and pet foods. Presently, there is an especially
high demand for quality agar as a microbiological media. Dried, baled agar-producing
seaweeds used for extracting biomedical grade agar sell for about $1,600 per ton.

Except for kelp, the United States imports nearly all the seaweeds used for food or
extracts. The Kelco Division of Merck and Company, Inc., one of the State's largest
kelp harvesting companies, manufactures approximately seventy different algin pro-
ducts from the giant kelp Macrocystis harvested in California's nearshore waters.
The properties of these products are important to a number of industries as highly
efficient thickening, stabilizing, suspending and gelling agents. As an example of
the economic benefits to the State from kelp harvesting, Kelco's harvesting, manu-
facturing and research operations require a substantial work force, currently about
1,600 people representing an annual payroll of 20 million dollars. The annual sales of
algin products manufactured in California exceed 35 million dollars.

Conservative estimates of wholesale figures place California aquaculture producer
income at 10.6 million dollars in 1980 and above 11 million dollars in 1982. Once
the products are in the retail market, as food items or as fish and bait for the
recreational industry, these figures increase three to five times.

The State's largest aquaculture producer is the California Department of Fish and
Game. The Department in 1982 produced approximately 50 million fish, totaling five
million pounds. These are mostly trout, catfish and salmon. Present plans for
Department hatchery operations include expansion of striped bass production.

Marine Mammals and Seabirds

The direct uses and importance of marine mammals and seabirds at this time are for
aesthetic, scientific and display purposes. In addition, marine mammals are fast
becoming an important factor in the dynamics of the marine ecosystem. Harvested to
near extinction in some cases, the recovery of some species, especially the pinnipeds,
since protective laws were enacted has been remarkable. Since the 1972 Marine
Mammal Protection Act, it has been illegal to injure, harass or kill sea mammals.

Sighting records of seabirds in California waters include the following species groups
alcids, loons, grebes, scoters, pelicans, shearwaters, shorebirds, kittiwakes, fulmars,
gulls, terns and cormorants with their numbers estimated in the millions.

Many of the cetaceans, such as the California gray whale, migrate through California
waters annually. The gray whales' proximity to land as it transits south each winter
provides an excellent spectacle for sightseers. Other whales that can be seen in
California include the blue, fin, sei, Bryde's minke, humpback, sperm, killer and pilot
whales. Several species of dolphins and porpoises are also found.

Six species of pinnipeds inhabit California waters: the northern elephant seal, harbor
seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion, northern fur seal and Guadalupe fur seal.
The sea otter, a member of the weasel family and closely related to river otters, is
now found in central California waters. This animal, popular with nature lovers, has
made a dramatic comeback from near extinction in the 1930's. Sea otters forage
extensively on shellfish. Coupled with the increase and expansion of the sea otter
population along the coast, this has resulted in a concurrent decline in shellfish in
areas where otters forage. The decline in the shellfish stocks is such that they no
longer support sport or commercial fisheries.

The most dramatic and best documented marine mammal population increase is that of
the elephant seals. Observed breeding again on San Miguel Island in 1958 after a
century's absence, these seals were increasing during the 1970's at a 12-15 percent
rate annually. This rate can decline in years such as 1982 when winter storms
caused very high pup mortality. Currently there are 20,000 elephant seals on San
Miguel Island and they are spreading to the islands of San Clemente, San Nicolas,
Santa Barbara, and the Coronados.

California sea lions, northern fur seals, harbor seals and Guadalupe fur seals are also
experiencing increased populations. California sea lions now number 40,000-50,000 in
the Channel Islands and, along with harbor seals, are beginning to impact on existing
sport and commercial fisheries. Although still abundant in northern California waters,
the Steller sea lion population is the only one declining in southern waters. While
reasons offered for the decline include the collapse of the sardine population and a
change in food supply due to warmer water, competition from increasing numbers of
other pinniped species may be the most probable cause.

El Pescador State Beach, Los Angeles County
� 1983, California Coastal Commission; reprinted from the Coastal Access Program, Third Annual Report.

OFFSHORE ENERGY AND MINERALS

Energy

Energy sources from the sea include oil and gas deposits beneath the continental
shelf, wave energy, thermal conversion, and fuel from kelp. The offshore area where
the State owns mineral rights was delineated by the United States Supreme Court in
1966. This area can be generally described as an area between the coast, or the
offshore islands, and a line three miles seaward. The total offshore area under
California's jurisdiction is approximately 4,700 square miles. Seaward of the state
waters, the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is under federal jurisdiction.

Since the 1969 Santa Barbara Channel blowout and oil spill there has been a mora-
torium on state oil leasing. However, the State Lands Commission recently approved
a leasing program for an area in Santa Barbara County waters from Point Conception
to Point Arguello. Estimates project a 95 percent likelihood of at least 63 million
barrels of oil and 55 billion cubic feet of gas being recovered from the area. There
is a five percent chance of at least 274 million barrels of oil and 219 billion cubic
feet of gas. Financial returns to the State will be in the form of bonus bids and/or
royalties paid on lease tracts by leasing petroleum companies. The State Lands
Commission estimates that as much as 1.5 billion dollars of revenue could be gener-
ated over a 20-year leasing period.

The federal government manages the Pacific OCS oil and gas resources beyond the
three-mile limit. The U.S. Interior Department's Mineral Management Service, Pacific
Division, provides the following data in their annual summary report: total revenues
from the lease sale of approximately 575 tracts on the Pacific OCS, 4 billion dollars;
production of OCS oil in 1981, 58.8 million barrels (39.3 million from state leases,
19.5 million from federal leases); production of natural gas in 1981, 23.5 billion cubic
feet (12.8 state, 10.7 federal).

The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that as much as 5.1 billion barrels of oil and
4.4 trillion cubic feet of gas could be recovered from the Santa Maria, Santa Cruz,
Bodega, and Point Arena Basins off central and northern California. It was also
estimated that the Eel River Basin and Outer Basins and Ridges could contain 4.4
billion barrels of oil and 7.1 trillion cubic feet of gas.

As fossil fuel supplies are being exhausted, new technologies are being developed to
harness the power of ocean tides, currents, waves, and thermal differentials. "Dam-
Atoll," a passive system which concentrates and converts ocean wave energy, is being
developed to funnel incoming wave energy into a central core and convert it into
electricity. Although only 1/10 scale pilot units have been tested, studies indicate
that it could produce electrical energy at competitive rates in the future.

Another future source of energy is found in the fast growing giant brown kelp
Macrocystis. A research effort is presently underway to test the feasibility of
growing kelp in huge offshore farms. A by-product of the broken down cell structure
of the kelp is methane gas, which can be burned directly in stoves, heaters, auto-
mobiles, electric generating plants, or even condensed into liquid fuels similar to
gasoline.

Minerals

Some of the dissolved minerals in seawater are already the basis of important Cali-
fornia industries. The San Francisco Bay area is one of the great solar-salt pro-
ducing areas of the world, with an output of more than a million tons of salt a year,
or about one-third of all the salt extracted by solar evaporation in the world. In
addition to sodium chloride and some potassium compound produced by solar evapora-
tion, seawater provides magnesium, chloride, bromine and chemicals used in the
manufacture of gypsum. Depending on energy costs, it may be feasible to extract
additional elements, such as strontium, boron, fluorine, aluminum and lithium.

Potentially valuable mineral deposits on the seafloor include phosphorite rock, man-
ganese nodules and polymetallic sulfides. On the tops of the banks off the coast,
some in water shallower than 50 fathoms, are large deposits of phosphate rock.
These phosphorites are suitable for the manufacture of certain kinds of phosphate
fertilizer essential to California's high agricultural productivity. Because shipping
costs are a high percentage of the total cost of phosphate fertilizer, it may be
possible to mine these offshore deposits and convert them to fertilizer more cheaply
than phosphates produced elsewhere. Scientists have known for some time that
phosphorites tend to become enriched in uranium and that, depending on the level of
concentration, this valuable resource can be extracted. To date, however, marine
phosphorite sources have not been commercially exploited because terrestrial re-
sources are still relatively abundant and the technology for mining marine sources has
not been developed.

Deeper in the ocean, covering vast stretches of the sea floor, lie incredibly large
deposits of black, potato-shaped nodules. The metals contained in these nodules are
strategically important to the United States. By weight they contain: manganese
(25-30 percent), nickel (1.5 percent), copper (1.3 percent) and cobalt (0.25 percent).
The most likely site for mining these so-called manganese nodules is in the Pacific
Ocean west of Mexico and southeast of Hawaii in the Clarion-Clipperton fracture
zone.

Private industry is seriously examining the prospect of harvesting manganese nodules.
The value of the resource has been estimated to be as high as 3 trillion dollars, the
largest resource ever discovered by man. However, because the nodules lie on the
ocean floor 2,500 miles from the nearest land, no one can establish an exclusive right
to them pursuant to current international law. California is home to one of the
world's most developed ocean mining consortia, Ocean Minerals Company, of which
Lockheed Ocean Systems is a member. In addition to developing a sophisticated
technolgy for manganese nodule mining, the consortia is also conducting preliminary
work on mining polymetallic sulfide ore deposits. If a nodule processing plant were
located in California, reasonable estimates call for a potential increase in employment
(approximately five hundred employees with total direct salaries of $12 million in
1980 dollars) and a larger tax base. Another possible benefit to the State from the
ocean mining industry would be the high probability of Californians making up a large
portion of the crews required to maintain mining operations and other transportation
requirements for ocean mining consortia operating in the Pacific Ocean.

Other potentially valuable deposits of the sea bottom consist of the skeletal remains
of marine animals. One familiar example is the large, ancient deposit of oyster shell
in San Francisco Bay, which is the basis of industry producing cement, soil condi-
tioners and poultry grit, with an annual output valued in the millions. Less well

known are the vast deposits over large areas of the deep sea floor of the skeletons
of microscopic animals, some of which are nearly pure calcium carbonate, and which
are quite similar in composition to the rock presently used for making cement. Other
deposits consist of enormous quantities of diatomaceous earth.

The nearshore waters and beaches of the State provide a supply of sand, gravel and
rock, all important to the multi-billion dollar construction industry. Certain deposits
in Monterey Bay provide specialty sands that are not found anywhere else in the
western part of the United States.

Freshwater from Desalination

Tremendous quantities of water must be developed to support the anticipated popula-
tion growth and expanding economic development of the state. Saline water conver-
sion offers great promise as a future supplemental source of water in certain areas
of the State, especially the arid south.

The Department of Water Resources has a Saline Water Conversion Program, provided
for by the Cobey-Porter Saline Water Conversion Act of 1965. In addition, the
University of California conducts saline water conversion research through its Cali-
fornia Water Resources Center. With the cost of desalinating seawater approaching
$800 per acre foot due to high energy costs, research efforts have more recently
focused on brackish water and agricultural wastewater. As technological advances
are made in the field of saline water conversion, it is expected that desalinated
water will become more and more competitive with other supplemental sources.
Seacoast communities would be the first to realize the advantages of desalinated
water when supplemental water transported from distant sources no longer can pro-
vide additional increments of water economically.

The potential for an additional source of freshwater is found in undersea freshwater
springs. The coastal strip is typified by interruptions of geological strata and by
termination of acquifers.

WASTE REPOSITORY

The sea along California's coast is a convenient place to get rid of waste heat from
power plants and to dispose of a large variety of industrial and domestic wastes.
Because of rapid mixing and the large volume of water, the ocean dilutes wastes
relatively quickly and the organic constituents are decomposed by marine bacteria.
However, it is possible in nearshore waters, and especially in semi-enclosed bays and
estuaries, to introduce wastes at a rate so great that dilution and decomposition are
too slow to prevent the concentrations in the ocean from reaching harmful levels.

Municipal wastewaters are the principal point source of most of the pollutants
entering California coastal waters. During 1980 and 1981 the flow from five south-
ern California ocean dischargers averaged over one billion gallons per day and con-
tained 610 metric tons of suspended solids.

Some of the more toxic materials challenge the assimilative capacity of the vast high
seas. The most notable of this class are the radioisotopes, the introduction of which
into the sea has been approached with great caution. Other materials, such as
tetraethyl lead from the combustion of motor fuels, synthetic detergents, heavy
metals, and some pesticides, are building up in the open sea in measurable amounts.
The ultimate effects of this buildup cannot now be forecast.

In January 1969, an offshore well in the Santa Barbara Channel blew out and re-
leased 33,000 barrels of crude oil; in January 1971, tankers collided near the Golden
Gate Bridge and spilled 20,000 barrels of Bunker C oil into the San Francisco Bay;
and, in December 1976, a tanker blew up in Los Angeles Harbor, spilling 22,000
barrels of Bunker C oil. While spills of this magnitude are infrequent, their expected
incidence can be statistically predicted. From data available, the Pacific Region
OCS Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has computer-projected oil spill
accident rates for operations in the Lease Sale 48 (Santa Barbara Channel) and 53
(Point Conception to the Oregon border) areas. These rates (number of spills of
1,000 barrels or more per billion barrels of oil handled) were applied to quantities of
oil expected to be produced, pipelined and tankered in the lease sale areas over the
approximately 20-year life of the fields. In Lease Sale 48, five spills of 1,000
barrels or more are predicted.

Rather than a unique combustion technology, at-sea incineration is a different
approach to waste incineration using existing technology, usually a liquid injection
unit mounted on a ship. Highly toxic wastes are burned in the incinerator at loca-
tions in the open sea away from populated areas and shipping lanes. Proponents
claim that the necessity for the removal of acidic gas from the emissions is elimi-
nated since the gases can be dispersed over the ocean without measurable effects to
people or sea life. Three at-sea burnings of large amounts of toxic organochlorine
wastes on a commercial incinerator ships have been carried out since 1974. The
third of these burns included the highly toxic herbicide, Agent Orange. The primary
advantage of at-sea incineration is that it takes place far from populated areas.
Disadvantages are the necessity for operating on-shore facilities for handling and
loading the wastes, the possibility of at-sea disasters causing spills and potential
problems in adequately monitoring at-sea operations.

HIGHWAY FOR COMMERCE

Another ocean use is the transport of commercial cargoes. A recent study, con-
ducted for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, reveals that the maritime in-
dustry contributes 8.2 billion dollars annually to the California economy. According
to the study report, California's waterborne trade increased by 56 percent since 1971,
with containerized trade up 28.9 percent. Statewide, the maritime industry gener-

ated 138,000 jobs earning 2.9 billion dollars in 1981 and an estimated 143,000 jobs
earning 3.1 billion dollars in 1982. In addition to generating 8.2 billion dollars in
gross sales in 1981, the maritime industry paid 380 million dollars in state and local
taxes.

Shipping constitutes an intense use of coastal waters, especially in the vicinity of
major ports. Ship accidents, especially those involving hazardous cargoes, are a
serious concern for coastal communities, ports and other ocean users. Improvements
in navigation and vessel traffic systems to promote safe operations are key to acci-
dent prevention. In addition to accidents, many tankers and other ships that carry
oil as fuel discharge oily wastes in coastal waters, even though stringent prohibitions
have been enacted. Some seaborne cargoes, such as liquefied gases and bulk chemi-
cals, can create serious fire and explosion or toxic release hazards if the ships are
operated improperly or proper precautions are not taken at terminals. Finally, de-
velopment and expansion of marine terminals and increasing industrialization in
coastal regions are affecting many land use decisions in coastal area.

Since 1976, the level of vessel traffic has increased dramatically throughout
southern California, an increase of approximately 40 percent in the number of
vessels calling on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Between the years of
1976 and 1981 the total number of vessel arrivals rose from approximately 5,000 to
over 7,000 per year.

Several new large coal export terminals are in various stages of planning and devel-
opment in California. Western coal reserves in the United States are large and
capable of massive expansion of production. Difficulties with efficient transporta-
tion from the mines to the west coast ports have hampered development to date.
However, reasonable projections call for large quantities of coal to be exported over
the next decades to Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Some of the terminal plans include
foreign ownership and investment in the facilities as well as long-term contracts for
supply. The new marine terminals will require either connections to railroads or
complete systems such as coal slurry pipelines from mines to ships.

MARINE RECREATION

California's ocean area provides a multitude of recreational activities for the State's
24 million people, the majority of whom live within 20 miles of the coast. Day use
of California's beaches includes: swimming, sightseeing, photography, sunbathing,
fishing, beachcombing, scuba diving and surfing. In 1966 there were nearly 60 million
visitor days; it was then estimated that there would be approximately 90 million
visitor days by 1980. However, Department of Parks and Recreation statistics show
140 million participation days in 1980. (A participation day is defined as one person
taking part in any recreational activity for any part of one day.) State Parks
calculated about 60 million people visited state coastal parks, not including federal or
local government operated parks, in 1980. Over 33 million one-day or overnight trips
were made to the coast and 50 million people attended Los Angeles County beaches.
While reliable data on visitor expenditures in coastal areas is not readily available, it
was estimated over $17 million was spent in coastal communities in 1980.

It was not too long ago that the planning for the State's shoreline parks ended at
the high tide line. However, the offshore or marine portion of a coastal park is
actually an extension of the terrestrial area. The beach or intertidal zone is merely
the transition point between the two. A prime example is Jughandle State Reserve
in Mendocino County with its series of marine terraces, known as the Ecological
Staircase, which extends offshore with another step in the staircase at the depth of
thirty feet.

Some twenty years ago, the State Department of Parks and Recreation became aware
the underwater area surrounding the Point Lobos State Reserve contained special and
unique natural values. The Department acquired title to 774 acres of the offshore
area from the State Lands Commission and on July 1, 1960, the State Park Commis-
sion officially recognized the marine lands as an addition to the Reserve. The
State's first rules and regulations for managing an underwater area were also adopted
at this time.

Seven categories of protected marine environment have been established off the
California coast by the state and federal governments in order to safeguard marine
habitats or resources within them from impacts that could diminish their value. The
State of California administers four categories of protected marine environments:
areas of special biological significance, state oil and gas sanctuaries, underwater
parks, ecological reserves and marine life refuges. The federal government admin-
isters three types of protected marine areas: national parks, national marine sanctu-
aries and ecological preserves.

With the advent of the federal Marine Sanctuary Program, California receives the
benefits of this protective designation around the Channel Islands and the Farallon
Islands - Point Reyes area. The Channel Islands Sanctuary, which was designated by
President Carter in 1980, includes five belts, each six miles wide, surrounding San
Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands. Farallon-Point
Reyes and Channel Islands are the only two federal marine sanctuaries that include
a prohibition on new oil and gas activity, although the existence of the Channel
Islands Marine Sanctuary, and retention of its oil and gas prohibition, are now being
challenged by the oil industry.

THE OCEAN'S IMPACT ON LAND

Weather and Climate

The ocean's great effect on climate can be seen by comparing temperature ranges in
coastal cities and inland areas of the same latitude. The interaction between air and
sea is also responsible for some of the inconvenient and disagreeable phenomena
experienced in California. Depending on season and location, "flood," "drought," "fog"
and "smog" are household words in one part of the State or another. There is little
that can be done about these things at present. As the workings of the great. heat
engine of air and sea are better understood, some control in modifying the rainfall
pattern and other weather may be possible.

One example of the economic benefits of oceanographic research is in the field of
long range weather forecasting. Recent meteorological studies show that changes in
world weather patterns are closely related to changes in the temperature distribution
of the water layers near the surface of the sea. These observations indicate that
improvements in long-range weather forecasts can be made through studies of the
large-scale interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere. If the present
accuracy were improved, forecasts for planting and harvesting crops, for planning
seasonal fuel transportation and storage, for the timing of building and road con-
struction, and for flood and drought protection would provide great savings.

Shoreline Erosion

Because of sea level changes and regional tectonic warping of the North American
continental land mass, the California coastline has been eroding for thousands of
years. Data derived from tide-gauge stations throughout the world indicate that the
mean sea level rose by approximately 12 centimeters in the past century. If predic-
tions of global warming are correct, with the consequent melting of polar ice caps,
a continued rise of sea level is likely in the near future.

Winter storms, coupled with periods of high tide, have devastating effects on the
California coast. Presently, beach erosion and bluff retreat is occuring over approx-
imately 85 percent of our shoreline. Many coastal residential areas, such as those in
Marin, Santa Cruz, Ventura, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, have experienced
damaging waves many times over the years. From December of 1977 through mid-
March of 1978, a series of severe storms battered the California coast. The cost of
damages throughout the State (inland and coastal) was $238,000,000. Along the
coastline, from Del Norte to San Diego County, high waves and tides accompanied by
a storm surge, caused more than $18,000,000 in damage to man-made coastal
developments.

As long as sea bluffs and coastal areas were left undeveloped or were used primarily
for agriculture and low-density recreation, erosion did not present major economic or
public safety problems. When the first permanent structures were built, vacant land
was still relatively plentiful and houses were commonly located in stable areas, away
from the most vulnerable parts of bluffs, canyons and floodplains. As coastal areas
become more densely populated, the number of stable lots declined. The desire for
beautiful ocean views, convenient beach access, land speculation and prestige has
induced many people to build at the ocean's edge and bluff-top development has
accelerated over the last two or three decades. The resulting seawalls and other
slope protection devices have often resulted in the loss or degradation of many
coastal bluffs and marine intertidal areas. At the same time, lessened erosion, the
result of a few relatively mild winters, lulled property owners into believing their
land was stable. Therefore, expensive residential structures have been built in high-
risk locations. For such dwellings, each severe winter storm is a potential disaster.

Winter is the time of the largest waves, enhancing the effect of rainfall on coastal
slope stability by rapidly removing landslide toes and protective beach sand. The
alignment of the northern California coastline exposes it directly to waves generated
by storms in the north Pacific and it experiences the most powerful wave conditions

in the State. Waves up to 44 feet have been recorded near Crescent City and
Waverider buoys installed outside Humboldt Bay have recorded wave heights of over
23 feet. Most spectacular of all, waves breaking against Trinidad Head in December
1914 produced run-up which rose to the lamp housing on the lighthouse at an eleva-
tion of 196 feet! When these wave conditions coincide with high tides and storm
surges, their potential effect can be catastrophic.

Tsunami potential is also considerable along the north coast. In 1964 Crescent City
was inundated by tsunami waves up to 21 feet high generated by the Alaska earth-
quake, causing eleven deaths and about nine million dollars worth of damage.

Saltwater Intrusion

Just as freshwater springs exist under the seafloor, the saltwater of the sea
occasionally intrudes into freshwater coastal aquifers. In certain areas of the
central coast, saltwater intrusion caused mostly by the overdrafting of groundwater
basins has affected the water quality of drinking water and agricultural irrigation
water.

Pigeon Pt. Lighthouse, San Mateo County
� 1982, California Coastal Commission; reprinted from the California Coastal Access Guide,
Revised Edition, Special Commemorative Issue.

OCEAN RESEARCH AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Over the past several decades oceanography has yielded a treasure of knowledge
about the ocean and its resources. Once seen as relatively static, the ocean is now
seen as a dynamic environment actively affecting climate, geology, food and resource
supply and environmental quality. Continued ocean research and monitoring for
further understanding its influence on the earth has become a vital endeavor.

One example of such research is the California Sea Grant College Program, a state-
wide multi-university program of marine research, education, and advisory services,
administered by the University of California Institute of Marine Resources. Sea
Grant-sponsored research contributes to the growing body of knowledge about coastal
and oceanic resources and to the solution of contemporary problems in the marine
sphere. The program also transfers information and technology developed in
research efforts to a wide community of users in California, the region, and the
nation.

Technology development programs are for the most part supported and funded by the
private sector and the federal government. These efforts include the design, con-
struction, testing and deployment of hardware and other oceanographic equipment.
Federally supported technology systems used in oceanography include ships, submers-
ibles, remotely operated vehicles, buoys and moored systems, equipment and instru-
mentation, satellites, aircraft and oceanic data systems.

Timely, accurate information from satellite remote sensing systems and hydroacoustic
systems are needed by fishermen and fisheries management agencies to enable fisher-
men to maximize their catch per unit effort and to allow resource managers to
determine the parameters of a prudent catch level. Fishermen and managers are able
to use coastal zone color scanners, infrared radiometers, scatterometers and altimeter
information to describe upwelling and sea conditions associated with the migratory
patterns of selected species of fish.

The importance to California fishermen of long-term marine research is best seen in
the ongoing California Current Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI), a joint
program conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game, the National
Marine Fisheries Service and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. A 30-year data set
obtained from this effort assists managers in making sound management decisions
regarding species which inhabit the California Current.

The ocean realm is truly a new frontier, with no end to the proposals advanced for
the future. In addition to floating coastal cities, the ocean has been eyed as a site
for offshore power plants, airports, tanker terminals and energy farms. Many of
these proposed developments will prove incompatible with other ocean uses; others
may become an integral part of future life.

Section II

MAJOR MARINE RESOURCE ISSUES

Over 90 speakers addressed a wide variety of technical subjects and management
issues during the first two days of the Ocean Studies Symposium. The third day was
reserved for core group deliberations. The technical and management presentations
were made by members of the following panels: The Law of the Sea Conference and
the National Role in Marine Resources Management; Federal/State/Local Responsi-
bilities in Marine Resources Management; Aquaculture; Commercial and Sport Fish-
eries; Marine Mammals; Marine Sanctuaries, Underwater Parks and Refuges; Offshore
Energy and Mineral Activities; Marine Transportation; Marine Pollution; Shoreline
Erosion; and Management Tools - Research, Conflict Resolution, New Approaches.

In order to avoid concurrent sessions and to cover all the material available,
speakers were limited to five minute presentations and asked to address only the
most important points of their subjects. A panel moderator was selected to help
focus the speaker's presentations for the most effective use of the limited time and
to facilitate the general audience question and answer periods that followed each
panel.

The panel moderators met with their panel members after the presentations to pre-
pare summaries for use by the core group. These moderators' summaries and the
policy papers are the basis for the material presented in this section. This section
contains the highlights of the panelists' discussions, the issues addressed, potential
conflicts and problems that were identified and, where applicable, solutions offered
for future consideration and use.

The opening session of the Symposium was a brief overview of the current roles and
responsibilities in marine resource management of the state government agencies.
This material is not presented in this section; each agency provided a statement of
its duties which is included in Appendix E.

There were two recurring points in the panel presentations. One, there is a serious
problem with overlapping jurisdictions and lack of coordination between some state
and federal management agencies. Two, there is a crucial need for additional,
precise data geared for use by decision-makers.

The first panel, after the overview of the responsibilities of California's management
agencies, was on the Law of the Sea Conference and the National Role in Marine
Management.

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE AND THE NATIONAL ROLE IN OCEAN MANAGEMENT

This panel addressed questions of global marine resource management. The inter-
national Law of the Sea (LOS) negotiations were the primary topics of discussion
with papers in two main areas: 1) the status of LOS international negotiations, and
2) the potential effect the work of the Law of the Sea Conference could have on
government management of the world's ocean resources. International laws and
approaches to ocean resources management are crucial to California because of its

possible expanded jurisdiction due to extension of the territorial boundaries and
other related issues.

The panelists discussed the following in their presentations:

* An increasing number of coastal nations are claiming expanded territorial juris-
diction which is causing conflicts over fishing rights, freedom of navigation,
deep sea-bed mining, pollution, etc.

* The Law of the Sea negotiations have attempted to resolve conflict in ocean
management issues on a global scale.

* The most controversial issue of the recent Law of the Sea Convention was the
exploitation of deep sea-bed mineral resources. The LOS Treaty is based on
the premise that the deep sea-bed mineral resources are a "common heritage"
located beyond "national jurisdictions" and should be used to "benefit all of
mankind." The developing nations and the western industrial nations have
disagreed over the "common heritage" versus "free enterprise" philosophies.

* The United States and several other industrialized nations chose not to ratify
the LOS Treaty primarily because of treaty provisions which limit free enter-
prise in deep sea-bed mining. The LOS Treaty would assign half the manga-
nese nodule mine sites to a new international sea-bed authority and the other
half to private companies subject to payment of fees, provisions for the trans-
fer of technology, and a 20-year limitation on the amount of sea-bed protec-
tion that would be permitted, lest land based producers of the same mineral be
unduly harmed.

* The LOS Treaty provisions are comparable to existing conditions for foreign
land based mining operations in such areas as Indonesia and parts of South
America. While the LOS Treaty would place restrictions and financial liabil-
ities on private mining companies, these restrictions cannot be more onerous
than those currently on American resource development companies which still
make a reasonable profit.

* The United States has decided not to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty. The
Reagan Administration wishes American based ocean mining firms to proceed
with extraction of deep sea-bed mineral resources. Many non-government
experts believe it doubtful there will ever be significant deep sea-bed mining
outside the provisions of the LOS Treaty because of the lack of clear title to
resources from the deep sea-bed in controvention to the essentially universal
Treaty.

* The issue of California's potential role in deep sea-bed mining was analyzed.
As a coastal state in the area nearest to the largest sites of maganese nod-
ules, California is a strong candidate as home port for ocean mining ships,
land based processing and refining facilities.

* There is pending legislation to create a 200-mile exclusive use zone which
would establish the U.S. claim to "sovereignty" or ownership of all resources
within the zone for the first time. The principal difference between the
proposed legislation's exclusive use zone and the 200-mile zone established by
the LOS Treaty is that the U.S. plan would not require the allocation of
fisheries surpluses to foreign countries. This issue of resource ownership is

important to California since it may affect the allocation of fees levied for
foreign fishing allocations in the Fisheries Conservation Zone (FCZ) under the
Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA).

* The United States recognizes a three-mile territorial sea boundary for the
ocean waters surrounding the U.S. and the other coastal nations. United
States sovereignty is established within the three miles and the Submerged
Lands Act generally grants jurisdiction to U.S. coastal states within these
three miles. (In a few specific cases such as Texas and Louisiana, special
treaties override the Submerged Lands Acts.) The United States has declared
the waters between three to twelve miles as a "contiguous" zone. Sovereignty
in this nine-mile area has not been claimed, but the United States does en-
force numerous laws such as policing drug traffic, pollution control, navigation
laws, and fisheries regulations in this zone. The Truman Proclamation (1945)
and The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act declared that mineral resources to
the edge of the continental shelf are the property of the United States.
Therefore, any use of mineral resources from three miles to the edge of the
continental shelf requires a lease from the federal government. The U.S rights
claimed in this area are more limited than those under complete sovereignty
within the three-mile territorial sea.

* The recently adopted Law of The Sea Treaty includes a provision which directs
coastal nations to adopt a universally recognized twelve-mile territorial sea
boundary. If the United States decides to follow the direction of the Law of
the Sea Treaty, U.S. sovereignty, now limited to three miles would be ex-
tended to twelve miles. In the event a twelve-mile territorial sea is adopted,
it is possible the Congress will consider amending the Submerged Lands Act
and the OCS Lands Act to extend the jurisdiction of U.S. coastal states from
three to twelve miles.

* An extension to a twelve-mile territorial sea could have important ramifications
for California. If new jurisdiction between three to twelve miles is given to
California and other coastal states through OCS and Submerged Lands Act
amendments, there is potential for increased state income and increased regu-
latory authority over the use and protection of the ocean resources in this
area. Also, there would be vast new state responsibilities with associated
costs for the management of this huge additional ocean area.

* The issue of extending the jurisdiction of U.S. coastal states to twelve miles is
complicated. State and local interests must be reconciled with the need for
uniform national regulation and the need for equity between California (rich
in resources) and other states.

* Some of the panelists felt there would be no real advantage to California in
extending states' jurisdiction to twelve miles. The whole concept of fixed
division between federal and state jurisdiction was questioned. Rational
division of -marine resources management responsibility has always proven
difficult partially because of the three mile limit.

* There is a great need for a single comprehensive ocean use and management
policy. As yet this has not been accomplished by federal action and it may
not be possible. It does appear possible to have clearly stated federal/state
management goals for particular ocean areas and to develop a federal/state
partnership to achieve these mutual goals in the most efficient manner.

As the issues were discussed, the panelists also presented suggestions, ideas for
possible solutions, outlined conflicts and problem areas and detailed some steps
needed for resolution. These points follow:.

* Coastal nations' continued expansion of territorial jurisdictions can cause a
significant loss of fishery resources, mineral resources and the freedom of
navigation to other countries. This is of particular concern for those nations
with little or no coastline.

* The LOS negotiations have attempted to exercise conflict resolution at an
international level. Some conflicts may not be resolved with any concensus
because of the vast differences in the philosophies of developing and industri-
alized nations. There is a need for ongoing international conflict resolution
efforts on marine resource management issues, including the review and revi-
sion of existing treaties on a regular basis to maintain their relevance in a
changing world.

* If deep sea-bed mining does occur off the Pacific coast, California could
provide ports for ships and locations for processing minerals. While this would
enhance California's economy, mineral processing requires new facilities, large
land areas and vast amounts of water. Numerous pollution problems can result
from the mineral operations. A legislative or governor's task force of govern-
ment and industry ocean mining experts could be convened to determine
whether the State should actively encourage ocean mining concerns to locate
in California. The issues of site location, pollution and potential economic loss
or gain to the State should be assessed in a preliminary fashion now while
such mining is still in the development phase.

* If national ownership of all resources within 200 miles becomes law, how will
a management system with an equitable and resource-conserving price structure
be established? A fair and sound pricing structure for living resources taken
by foreign fishermen within 200 miles of California needs to be established.
This might be possible through a joint federal and multi-state effort.

* All panelists agreed that the extension of coastal state jurisdiction to twelve
miles is a very complicated political and resource issue. One panelist sug-
gested California take the initiative and strongly encourage Congress to
establish a national commission modeled after the former Stratton Commission
to make future national legislative recommendations on expanded offshore
jurisdiction for coastal states.

* Legislation mandating federal OCS revenues be shared with coastal states is
now being considered by Congress. Panelists expressed two different opinions
about the use of these funds. One opinion was that the funds should be given
to states on an interim (approximately three-year) basis to carry out marine
resource management until such time as the questions of federallstate
management of offshore resources is clearly resolved. An alternate point of
view was that coastal states be given a long-term guaranteed share of OCS
revenues which would allow meaningful state participation in a federal/state
partnership for management of ocean resources in the expanded boundary. it
was suggested the California Legislature develop a policy on the possible
extension of state jurisdiction from three to twelve miles and the potential use
of OCS revenue sharing funds.

� The panelists' preference for a strengthened federal/state partnership, one not
limited by an arbitrary boundary, at either three or twelve miles, was evident.

STATE/FEDERAL/LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

This panel discussed the various roles and interaction of the federal, state and local
governments in the management of ocean resources. Many of the issues addressed
were first introduced at the Symposium by the Law of the The Sea panel.
Discussion centered on the following:

� Several panelists expressed the need for a strong ocean policy at national and
state levels. At both levels, the management of marine resources is divided
among several agencies. Each agency now bases its actions on established
policies which may result in conflicting objectives.

� There is a need for a clearer prioritization of policies affecting marine
resources use and management.

� Improved coordination and communication between and within federal and state
agencies with authority in marine matters will promote more effective and
efficient marine resources management.

* Any state approach to marine resource management must provide predictability
to the private sector, specifically:

a) broader consensus on "externalities" (e.g. environmental issues) that
must be addressed by the private sector,

b) reduced fragmentation of governmental authority, and

c) assurances regarding future restrictions on specific enterprises.

* Any state approach to marine resource management should recognize that local
government must have a role, albeit limited. It must also recognize that
traditional local planning and regulatory approaches will have to be modified if
local governments are to be able to deal, even on a limited basis, with
marine resource issues.

AQUACULTURE

Currently world ocean fisheries landings are approximately 72 million metric tons
(MMT). The maximum sustained yield, or the total havest capabilities without causing

adverse effects to the resource, is projected to be 100 to 120 MMT. It is also
projected that the maximum sustained yield will be reached or exceeded in 25 years.
In the upcoming years, aquaculture will become more and more crucial in the produc-
tion of marine plants and animals. This panel addressed some of the important types
of aquaculture activities in California and some of the problems and challenges the
industry faces. Among the issues discussed were:

* If salmon ranching is conducted, should it be done by the State or the private
sector? Or not at all?

* Existing natural fishery stocks will not sustain future demands. Therefore,
aquaculture expansion should be promoted and supported to help supplement
the demand for aquatic food products.

* The waters of California from Point Lobos north to the Oregon border have
been closed to commercial fishing for abalone since 1945. Abalone is in high
demand and the aquaculture industry can make an important contribution to the
supply.

* The state and aquaculture industry need to focus cooperative effort on suc-
cessful implementation of recent aquaculture legislation (SB1917) to promote
the growth and development of the industry.

* Federal agencies given primary responsibility under the Federal Aquaculture
Development Act need greater support from the federal government in order to
carry out the intent of the Act in promoting the development of aquaculture.

* A major issue facing aquaculture is user conflict. Prime sites, such as shel-
tered bay areas, are under increasing demand for urban development and
recreational use. Public pressure to exclude aquaculture when it conflicts with
recreational activities precludes use of valuable marine resources for future
food production. A great potential in expanding aquaculture production is
access to semi-closed, land-based facilities on the open ocean. The need for
coastal sites and locations adjacent to environments where the cultured organ-
isms naturally occur will become more acute in the future.

The panelists outlined some potential methods of resolution of current problems facing
the aquaculture industry:

* Reevaluate waste discharge regulations for aquaculture activities.

* Evaluate industry need for open ocean frontage.

* Obtain broad zoning ordinances to allow access to diverse aquaculture
operations.

* Provide aquaculture information to local and state planners for use in assessing
the industry's social benefits and costs.

* Aquaculture efforts are necessary to supplement or replace diminishing natural
stocks, such as abalone.

COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES

A vast spectrum of issues and conflicts exist concerning marine fisheries. This eight-
member panel was able to address only a few of the numerous marine fishery prob-
lems facing California's users and managers. While significant issues were discussed,
the presentations of this panel must not be construed as a complete or objective
summary of all crucial fisheries issues.

Historically, the bulk of the harvest of California's local fisheries consisted of sar-
dines, mackeral, albacore, salmon, bluefin tuna, used primarily in canning, and a few
fresh market species such as barracuda, sole, rockfish, white seabass and halibut. An
important characteristic of the harvest of fish from the California Current is that,
although over 60 kinds of fish and a score of invertebrate species are included,
several species consitute most of the catch.

The Pacific sardine dominated the commercial catch until the mid-1940's when the
fishery collapsed. Since that time, the tuna fishery has been the mainstay of the
California fish canning industry although most tuna landed in California are caught
from foreign waters or the high seas. Currently, California has important fisheries in
king and silver salmon, dungeness crab, various shrimps, rockfishes, mackeral, bonito
and numerous species of bottomfish. All of these fishery resources are marketed
fresh, frozen or canned.

The main issues the panelists discussed included:

* Some species, such as salmon, may be yielding at or above maximum sustainable
harvest. A few, such as white seabass and bonito, have been overharvested
and are now at reduced levels. Other species are currently underutilized and
the harvest of these fish populations could be increased. Some of these
presently underused species are less popular with domestic consumers and may
provide export products.

* Currently a limited entry program is used by the California Department of Fish
and Game as a management technique with the commercial abalone harvesters.
A limited entry program can be controversial but can also provide an effec-
tive means to deal with some fisheries which are now experiencing diminished
stocks.

* Forage fish stocks are a part of the source material for the reduction industry
in the production of fish meal, fertilizer, oils, etc. These forage fish also
play a crucial role as a food source for some of the more commercially valu-
able predator species. There is currently a debate over the value of forage
fish to the reduction industry versus the ultimate value if they were not
harvested, but left in the sea available as food for the predator fish. An
example of the importance of fish for forage is the current federal manage-
ment plan for anchovy, a principle forage fish off California. The plan is
designed to set aside a minimum reserve of anchovy, with the annual harvest-
able quota set at one-third of the estimated spawning biomass in excess of the
minimum reserve (including forage).

* According to the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1981, salmon was the
second most important fishery resource in the United States in terms of both

quantity and value. California's streams, rivers, and ocean waters make a
substantial contribution to the U.S. salmon resources. Wild populations of
salmon have dropped substantially for a variety of reasons including damage to
coastal streams from erosion, dam construction, water diversions and heavy
fishing. The maintenance of a viable stock of wild salmon is essential to the
preservation of the genetic diversity of salmon.

* A large part of the salmon caught off the California coast are wild fish.
However, hatchery stocks may be becoming a more significant part of the
catch. Hatchery born salmon are released to the sea where they mix with the
wild stocks. Thus, salmon captured at sea are a combination of wild stocks
from numerous different streams and hatchery reared fish.

* Fishery experts do not agree on the effect hatchery production has on the
natural populations of salmon. Some believe that hatchery production aug-
ments natural populations by adding more stock to the fishery; others think
that hatchery production has or will cause direct or indirect declines in
natural salmon production.

* The decline in natural salmon production can be associated with the increase
in hatchery production in several ways. Because there are substantial numbers
of hatchery reared salmon available for harvest at sea, the fishing effort is
high. This can result in a harvest rate that is sound for hatchery fish but
exceeds the level of catch desirable for wild stocks, and can cause a potential
loss of genetic diversity by the overall reduction of the natural salmon popu-
lation. With the mixture of natural and hatchery populations, interbreeding
will occur which could cause a reduction in the adaptability of the offspring
to the natural environment.

* At the same time, it must be recognized that public hatcheries take fish from
the same gene pools as natural spawners and that there is a natural straying
of stream-produced fish that tend to mix the gene pool.

� There are enormous conflicts involved in managing multiple natural stocks of
salmon augmented by hatchery releases.

� Ocean ranching of anadromous fish involves the release of hatchery reared fish
to the sea after they have been "keyed in" to a stream at their release point.
After being available at sea for public harvesting, the remaining mature fish
return to their home stream where they are harvested by the ocean ranch
operator.

� Salmon trollers are concerned about the marketing impacts of widespread
salmon ranching on their occupations. There is currently only one experimental
salmon ranching operation in California but several in Oregon. There is a
developing controversy over the ranching of anadronous fish with both real
and perceived conflict between salmon trollers and ocean ranching operators.

� The problem of allocating limited fishery resources between recreational and
commercial fishermen is the subject of considerable debate at state, multi-
state and national levels of fisheries management. The many management
agencies involved often have overlapping or conflicting jurisdictions over
fishery resources and unnecessarily complex regulations.

* The necessary data to make sound fishery management decisions is not always
available to management agencies.

* Many California fishermen do not feel that they. are adequately represented on
the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and that California should have its
own management council or that all management should be handled by the
'Department of Fish and Game.

* The Pacific Fisheries Management Council was criticized for failing to provide
the coordinated, responsive management for which it was created; this appears
to be especially troublesome for salmon resources.

* The proper management of a fishery requires an understanding of the basic
population structure of the species involved. Information is needed on the
number of individual breeding populations supporting the fishery, both sport and
commercial, as well as size and location of the stocks.

* Landing figures needed for assessment of fish stocks and management strategy
are compiled and available to Department of Fish and Game staff in unpub-
lished form through 1981. Published fish landings for California are currently
available through' 1976 in the Department's "Fish Bulletin". While most of the
unpublished backlog will be published in 1983, there is a need for additional
resources to complete some segments of the fisheries data.

* Long-term research, such as the California Current Oceanic Fisheries Investi-
gations (CalCOFI) program, is important for sound management decisions and
funding for these programs must be assured.

* The potential benefits to the fishing industry of recent developments in remote
sensing and hydroacoustics have not yet been fully defined.

The panelists discussed special conflicts and problem areas and suggested some
methods of resolving them. This discussion is outlined below:

* Marketing programs to educate consumers and increase demand will be needed
to make the harvest of presently underutilized fish stocks economically
feasible.

* An analysis should be done to determine the relative value of forage fish for
source material to the reduction industry versus as a food supply for valuable
predator fish. The results of this study should be used to set quotas on the
take of forage fish as is done with anchovy, the primary species harvested in
California for reduction; it is managed on a quota basis with allocations for
forage, live bait, spawning reserve and reduction.

* California urgently needs a strong fisheries management policy which estab-
lishes strategies to assure long-term future natural salmon production. All
research needed to provide a genetically sound management philosophy should
be pursued.

* Ocean ranching will continue to be a controversial issue in California until a
state policy is developed. This is closely linked with the need to assure iong-
term natural salmon populations.

* Better coordination and communication between management agencies and user
groups are needed as are similar mechanisms between the diverse user groups.
Simplification of regulations and interagency coordination are essential.

* The increasing number of fisheries/marine mammals conflicts require a holistic
management approach. This will involve improved communication and policy
discussion by agencies with marine mammal and fishery management responsi-
bility, the fishing industry and the marine mammal protection organizations.

* Private sector concerns need to be addressed when developing statewide
fishery management policies.

* There is need for multi-species management.

* Improved catch and fishing-effort data are needed to provide a factual basis
for resolving conflicts of interest over the utilization and allocation of living
marine resources. The Department of Fish and Game should be given the
necessary resources to accomplish this.

* Information, such as that currently being done through the National Council for
Gene Resources, and further research is needed on genetic implications of
management strategies. This research is needed to develop an informed salmon
management policy.

* Greater industry participation should be included in the design and implementa-
tion of improved high technology tools for aiding fishermen and resource
managers.

MARINE MAMMALS

This panel touched on some of the issues of marine mammal management in California
waters. Speakers addressed the growing populations of some principal pinniped
species, sea otters and their relationship to other marine resources, data on marine
mammal and sea bird population and a marine mammal stranding network.

The issues discussed by the panel included:

* Marine mammals in California's ocean waters are protected by several conser-
vation laws. After the near eradication of certain marine mammals from
hunting, increased protection has allowed populations to flourish. The most
dramatic increase has been with Northern Elephant Seals, increasing about 14%
per year. Other pinnipeds, such as California- sea lions, northern fur seals,
Guadalupe fur seals and harbor seals, are also increasing but not as rapidly as
the elephant seals. Sea otter populations also appear to be increasing, but
there is disagreement among experts as to how quickly. Populations of Cali-
fornia grey whales and other cetaceans have also been increasing, but not at
the rate of the pinnipeds.

* The return of marine mammal populations to their former numbers is evidence
of the effectiveness of the conservation laws, but there will continue to be
conflicts and changes that must be addressed by management agencies. These
include shifts in ecosystem structure and relative species abundance, conflicts
with commercial and sport fisheries, favorable or unfavorable interactions with
tourism, recreation, oil development, commercial shipping and military
operations.

* The conflict between increasing marine mammal populations and commercial and
sports fishermen involves damage to gear and to hooked or netted fish, and
real or imagined depletion of catchable fish because of mammal predation.

* Fishing activities, especially the use of the entangling nets, will continue to
trap and drown marine birds and mammals.

* In the Southern California Bight, where the ocean area is used by the military
for training, operations and research, an increased mammal population is likely
to result in greater disturbance to the mammals themselves and in potential
interference with the military operations.

* As marine mammal populations increase, a greater absolute number of animals
would be subject to contamination by oil in the event of a spill.

* Public awareness of the large numbers of marine mammals in certain places
could create greater problems of visitor control and increase the likelihood of
disturbance to the rookeries.

* There is no doubt that the comeback of sea otter populations from their
earlier near demise has had a significant effect on shellfish populations. There
is enormous controversy over the level of damage to shellfish populations
caused by sea otters. Also, there is no agreement on the current population
of otters. Various proposed management schemes such as translocation and/or
limiting population and range has caused various groups to support radically
different positions on sea otter management.

The panelists outlined some problems and recommended actions for resolution. These
included:

* With the federal government responsible for protection and management of
marine mammals and the State with control of fishery resources, there is a
jurisdictional dilemma which must be resolved if there is ever to be eco-
system, rather than single species, management.

* With the expansion of marine mammals into vacant habitat on southern Califor-
nia islands, there is an unparalleled opportunity to test ecological theories of
competition and resource partitioning among several species.

* Marine mammal and fisheries interactions and conflicts require a comprehensive
management approach. Seabirds also must be considered in the development
of a comprehensive marine mammal and fisheries policy. Changes in fish
populations will in turn affect marine birds and marine mammals.

MARINE SANCTUARIES, UNDERWATER PARKS AND REFUGES

The United States, with the National Park Service, and California, with the Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation, have established a long, solid committment to terres-
trial parks and wildlife refuges. In the early 1970's a movement to set aside valu-
able and unique underwater areas along the nation's coastline began. This Symposium
panel discussed some of the purposes and benefits of underwater sanctuaries, parks
and refuges and some problems experienced in their management. The panel also
discussed the importance of public education on marine management issues and the
value of facilities, such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium, for educational purposes.

The topics covered by the panelists included:

* There are at least six different types of protective designations used by local,
state or federal agencies for marine waters off California. These underwater
parks, refuges and sanctuaries are often established with different objectives
ranging from the prohibition of wastewater discharge and/or oil and gas pro-
duction, to the facilitation of research and/or recreational uses. Despite the
diversity of designations and the relatively high number of marine reserves,
parks and refuges in California, few areas provide full protection of entire
ecosystems.

* How well are underwater parks and reserves doing what they were created to
do? How adequately are the areas protected?

* Underwater sanctuaries and refuges in California are actually multiple use
areas where many activities can occur. While resources in some multiple use
areas can be adequately protected, other areas are so unique or fragile that
only very limited uses should occur. There is significant benefit in setting
aside certain limited areas in an undisturbed state solely for research and
maintenance of a reservoir of wild genetic materials.

* With the significant increase in the recreational interest in California's off-
shore waters by divers, whale and bird watchers, etc., marine parks provide an
important leisure and educational resource for the citizens of California and
the nation. The California Department of Parks and Recreation has started an
important underwater park program and funding should be assured for its
continuance.

* Park, sanctuary and refuge designation can limit or prohibit activities such as
oil and gas exploration. This has been done in the Channel Islands and
Farallon/Point Reyes Sanctuaries. The prohibition of oil and gas activities
has caused opposition by the petroleum industry. In some cases, prohibiting
such activities is necessary to preserve the wildness of an important marine
area. Presently, a major group of oil companies is challenging the Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary designation so that oil and gas leasing,
development and extraction could take place in the preserve area.

Among the problems/conflicts and steps needed for resolution, the panelists addressed
the following:

� There is a need to reevaluate the purpose of marine sanctuaries. Are there
too many different types of designations?

� An inventory of all marine sanctuaries, park and refuge areas in California
should be prepared to determine if representative marine ecosystems have been
included and if existing management regulations and techniques are adequate to
protect the areas.

� A comprehensive ocean management plan for California should include a strong
program of underwater recreation, research and education areas.

OFFSHORE ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES

This panel discussed a few of the many innovative uses of the ocean for energy and
mineral resource developement. Presentations ranged from discussion of oil and gas
extraction activities to maganese nodule mining to the use of the ocean for alterna-
tive energy production.

a The State could benefit from a strong ocean mining industry in several ways,
such as a greater tax base and increased employment. The principal concern
in choosing a maganese module processing location is the distance from the
mine site; mining is expected to be 2,500 miles off Californiats coast. Ob-
taining the necessary permits for a manganese nodule processing plant, espe-
cially for the discharge of tailings, represents a major challenge for the ocean
mining companies. Some studies indicate that the mineral tailings can be
handled in an environmentally acceptable manner, but large amounts of land
and water would be needed. The legal aspects of ocean mining have not been
resolved, leaving a cloud of uncertainty over future prospects. (Please see
the Law of the Sea Section for a more detailed explanation.)

� One example of alternative energy from the ocean was "Dam-Atoll", a system
which focuses incoming wave energy into a central core and converts that
energy into electricity. The device, approximately 300 feet in diameter, is
constucted of reinforced concrete and is moored along the coastline in water
depths of 150 to 300 feet. Only 1/10 scale units have been tested; however,
studies indicate "Dam-Atoll" could produce electrical energy at competitive
rates in the future.

* Another example is ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) which is being
tested at various locations around the world. The potential for economical use
in California has yet to be determined.

* The production of oil and gas in California's offshore waters makes an impor-
tant contribution to the State's economy and the energy supply of the United
States. Oil and gas exploration and production can cause environmental
damage on land and at sea. The oil industry has significantly improved its
technical abilities in offshore operation, and there has been no major explora-
tion or production oil spill in California since 1969. Major issues about off-

shore oil and gas operations still need to be addressed by the oil industry and
government management agencies. Much work is now underway regarding oil
spill prevention and clean-up, the effect of drilling fluids and cuttings, air
pollution, the use of sub-sea completions, etc.

* Federal guidelines for offshore oil spill equipment have resulted in a greatly
improved spill response capability by industry. There is still need for further
refinement of equipment and techniques; the impacts of some techniques, such
as dispersants, are disputed.

* Natural gas and oil seep containment is technically feasible and results in
lowering of air and water-borne pollution. Less expensive containment equip-
ment should be developed.

* Study design should be carefully tailored for the offshore oil and gas issues
that require further ecological research. This is paramount because subtle
changes in biological communities will be extremely difficult to identify against
the background of significant natural changes.

The major problem areas and steps needed for resolution outlined by the panelists
included the following:

� California should consider maganese nodule mining as a "special case" requiring
the study of management alternatives for disposal of processing wastes, devel-
opment of guidelines or regulations specific to marine mining, new research,
active promotion or discouragment of industry activities and designation of
potential sites for manganese nodule processing and waste disposal facilities.

* The State should develop a policy on experimental ocean energy devices and
designate sites where their use would be acceptable.

* To develop a sound management strategy on the use and disposal of drilling
fluids, the following aspects must be considered:

a) chemical characteristics of drilling fluids and cuttings,

b) conditions influencing upper plume (far field) dispersion,

conditions influencing lower plume (near field), and

d) considerations of generic mud concept in terms of assessing effects of
drilling fluids and cuttings.

� There is a need to recognize the difference between oil reserves and oil
resources in oil and gas management strategies.

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

Marine transportation makes a huge contribution to the economy of California, over
eight billion dollars annually. The two most important port complexes in California
are those of San Francisco-Oakland and Long Beach-Los Angeles. Planning for
needed coastal port facilities and risk management for operations are critical com-
ponents of any ocean management plan for California. This panel discussed some of
the important marine transportation issues, such as the conflict between offshore oil
drilling activities and vessel navigation, vessel traffic control systems and other
marine transportation policies.

The issues addressed during the Symposium included:

* There are many conflicts between shipping and other users of coastal naviga-
tion (i~e., oil and gas, fishing, recreational) in ports and harbors as well as on
the open ocean.

* There is concern about the safety of offshore oil. and gas operations. What
steps are being taken to improve/enhance operational safety?

* Should hazardous cargo such as liquefied natural gas, be handled at offshore
terminals or at sites on the coast?

� How are conflict avoidance mechanisms in coastal waters and ports and harbors
to be developed?

� How should Calif ornia's government deal with marine transportation issues? Is
a new agency such as a state maritime administration needed?

The panelists discussed potential solutions to the aforementioned problems such as:

* Develop mandatory traffic control schemes such as the vessel traffic system in
the Santa Barbara Channel for the entire coast and harbors where major
conflict potential exists.

* California should set up a state agency for maritime transportation. The State
should work closely with national and international agencies responsible for
improvement and maritime safety.

MARINE POLLUTION,

This panel focused on some of the conceptual issues of marine pollution in Califor-
nia's ocean waters. The topics included research to determine ecological impacts,
the assimulative capacity of the sea, the sea's use as a dumping ground, toxic,
radioactive, domestic and industrial wastes.

The main points of the discussions were:

* The question of disposing toxic wastes and other pollutants at sea involves
political, ecological, scientific, moral and economic concerns. To resolve
these issues, a great deal of reliable data with sound analysis is needed as a
basis for decision-making. Cooperation between management agencies and
effective transfer of data from scientists to decision-makers is as important as
the collection of reliable data. Although scientists emphasize the need for
further information, this does not address the critical need for a decision
making process to be used in the absence of conclusive data.

* A greater effort should be made to understand more completely the structure
and dynamics of marine ecosystems. Different resources have different
requirements - what is polluting to one may be stimulatory to another. Only
by better understanding the dynamics of marine ecosystems can the ocean's
multiple resources be maintained and waste disposal allowed.

* The marine ecosystem is too complex for large-scale population/community
studies for predictive purposes. Therefore, every effort should be made to
find, develop and perfect the use of indicator or "early-warning" species (i.e.
mussels, sand crabs) for pollution study.

* A greater understanding of the relative influence of point source versus non-
point source pollution is needed before effective management can take place.

* The potential for desalinating sea water should be reevaluated. If desalting
plants are ever used, it will be necessary to study the effect of brine dis-
charges on the marine environment.

* The State should consider management alternatives for disposal of manganese
nodule processing wastes.

* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering revising regulations to
allow low-level radioactive wastes to be dumped in the ocean.

* The U.S. Navy has proposed disposal of decommissioned, defueled nuclear
submarines on the seafloor off the coast of northern California. The Califor-
nia Legislature is presently considering legislation directing the Coastal Com-
mission, under terms of the 1976 Coastal Act, to use "all means available to
prevent the dumping of radioactive waste in the ocean".

The panelists identified some potential solutions and outlined possible steps for
problem resolution as follows:

* The State of California should consider preparing an assessment of the critical
information needed for pollution decision-making and methods of communica-
ting such needs to scientists and engineers. This would include, but not be
restricted to: 1) an assessment of estuarine and continental shelf ecosystems;
2) an "eye to the future" assessment of chronic and/or long-term pollution
problems and responses to perterbations of the marine realm, including radio-
active waste disposal and long term "natural" ecosystem change versus man-
induced change; and, 3) greater use of modern technical aids such as satellite
monitoring. This study should include a re-assessment of continuation of data
collection similar to that used in past studies; use of such data to make

environmental management decisions; and, the effectiveness of "older" or
"traditional" approaches in decision making.

* Ocean resource managers should develop some method to evaluate the extent
and gravity of a pollution problem before a vast, expensive resolution effort
(or clean-up) is Initiated. Time should not be wasted on "non-problems".

* A comprehensive ocean management program for California should include a
framework for facilitating the exchange of accurate and meaningful informa-
tion from scientists, engineers, planners and economists to the decision-makers
and the public in a manner that can be easily understood and used.

* Predictive and modeling approach studies should be considered by management
agencies in addressing marine pollution issues. These studies should do the
following:

a) focus on predicting currents and current systems. Such systems are
vital to an understanding of the dilution, dispersal and general move-
ments of pollutants in the marine realm,

b) focus on predicting marine toxic levels and pollution concentration,
and

c) assure that such predictive models are appropriately chosen and that
model parameters are known and match the data used.

a The cumulative effects of dumping nuclear and toxic wastes in the ocean must
be considered in all actions by management agencies.

SHORELINE EROSION

The shoreline erosion panel discussed a variety of erosion issues and reached con-
census on several major points. Shoreline erosion (beach erosion,, bluff retreat) is
occuring over 86% of the California coast. Attempts to halt erosion are fragmented,
under the jurisdiction of numerous state and local government agencies, and often at
odds with the public desire for building on scenic but unstable land.

The issues discussed by the panelists included'.

* Shoreline erosion problems transcend political boundaries and are often multi-
jurisdictional. The magnitude and relative importance of the various problems
vary geographically.

* The existing program is in a crisis/response mode. There are numerous
government agencies with erosion programs. However, there is no = program
to comprehensively address erosion on a statewide basis, to define the scope
of the problem, to do a risk assessment and to set priorities for data collec-
tion, evaluation and project selection. There is no predictable mcney source.

Because of this fragmentation, it is not clear who has responsibility for
planning, land use, construction or money.

* On undeveloped lands, land use decisions can prevent future problems through
set-backs and zoning. On developed lands, should endangered structures be
protected or abandoned? Are there sufficient public benefits from protection
projects to spend public money to protect private property?

* What time scale should be used for land use and project decisions? How long
will solutions last? How should immediate crises be resolved? What are
interim solutions?

The panelists agreed on several recommendations for future action including:

* A statewide erosion plan is needed. Problems will never be addressed on a ra-
tional, effective, programatic basis until there is a comprehensive statewide
plan.

* State level institutional improvements are needed. The existing, fragmented
and weak erosion control programs must be brought together in a strong single
focus, preferably managed by a single agency.

* Money is needed. The existing programs are insufficiently funded to carry out
the panel's recommendations. A steady, predictable source of funding is needed
for data collection, studies, plans and projects. Panelists' suggestions included
a one mil tax on coastal county hotel receipts, a tax on energy revenue, a
bond measure and a line item in the state budget for shoreline erosion control.

* Existing opportunities should be used. The Corps of Engineers' Coast of
California Study can be used to collect data, document change and develop
"tools" for decision makers. This Coast of California Study should be expanded
to include other areas in addition to the present work in San Diego County.
Academic institutions can provide information, innovation and low cost ways to
collect needed data.

* The San Diego Council of Governments formed a technical task force to write
a report on the physical, institutional and funding problems which was used to
unify previously fragmented efforts to lobby for state and federal government
participation. The San Diego study can be used as a model for other joint
political and scientific efforts to address critical erosion problems.

* Studies musts be regional in scope. The "big picture" must be taken into
account before "localized" problems can be properly evaluated. Site specific
studies to collect information on local conditions (e.g., geology) must be
conducted.

* Effects of structural solutions must be evaluated. Structural solutions can
work well without significant offsite effects, but sometimes the effects can be
substantial. The effect on sand sources, longshore transport, and access must
be studied.

* Disagreement exists on the effects of sea level rise. Although sea level rise
from melting polar ice cap is thought by some to be a significiant cause of
erosion, many disagree. Further analysis of this issue is needed.

* Data already exists but is hard to use. The existing, fragmentary erosion
program has produced a vast body of information that is inaccessible and
unusable to all but the most hardy.

MANAGEMENT TOOLS: RESEARCH, CONFLICT RESOLUTION, NEW APPROACHES

The major problem of ocean management is equitable resolution of increasing conflicts
over the demand for limited ocean resources. Managing a fair allocation process and
the use of new methods or tools for management assistance were the subjects of this
panel.

The panelists addressed the following issues and areas of concern:

* The traditional view of ocean resources use and management has been based on
a "freedom of the seas" doctrine. As the numbers of users and the conflicting
uses in the worlds oceans have increased, scarcity and competition developed.
Therefore, one user's right often interferes with another's right. Moreover,
with the industrialized nations' powerful tools of science and technology,
damaging impacts can occur which will have long-run and perhaps irreversible
effects.

* "Multiple Use" is a management concept that allows several different users to
harvest resources, usually without exclusive rights. While multiple use of the
world's oceans as a general approach is sound and necessary, it may not be
appropriate in some areas. Unique and very important areas must be preserved
for research, education, breeding areas.

* A wide variety of data is collected in the marine environment annually.
However, only a small amount of the information is actually useful in the
decision making process. A specific marine resource management problem must
be clearly defined before the demand for more data is made. Once the prob-
lem is clearly defined, the management agency must determine if the question
can be answered with new data or if the solution is one of striking a com-
promise between opposing uses and associated benefits. Also, the difficulty of
data collection in the marine environment must be acknowledged. The ocean
is an extremely changeable environment, with continuous seasonal and spatial
fluctuations. The state and federal government need to work with the scien-
tific community and the various user groups to establish a network of data
sharing. This will require the condensation of scientific studies to informa-
tion easily assilimated in the decision making process.

* There is a strong push to make resource management decisions on a cost-
benefit basis today. It is very difficult to assign monetary values to non-
consumable resources.

* Visual considerations have often been overlooked in the design of marine
facilities.

The following are the major conflicts and some suggestions for their resolution made
by the panel:

� The State of California needs to develop a sound marine resource management
policy which establishes a general framework for all involved agencies.

* Any comprehensive marine resource management plan for California should
include a clear identification of the resources, the users and the potential
conflicts. Also, techniques for conflict resolution should be an important
component of such a plan. Panelists suggested the possible use of third party
intervenors and required training in conflict management for those working in
controversial marine resource management positions.

* A program of cooperation between research institutions should be established to
set priorities for research to avoid duplicity and assure that the most critical
issues receive scientific attention.

* There must be long-term support for data collection and analysis focused on
specific resource management issues. Agencies must establish data systems or
a central inventory of existing data banks so that information can be ex-
changed efficiently and duplication of effort minimized.

� The 'State of California should consider the question of establishing economic
values on non-market resources. In cases where it could be utiiltzed, standard
approaches must be determined.

� In addition to the diverse mandates of involved state and federal agencies,
there is the ongoing problem of communication and coordination. Local
governments, who have little direct responsibility for marine resource manage-
ment, often are entirely excluded from the decision making processes.

* A critical issue that must be considered is the relationship between different
marine resources (i.e. fishery stocks and marine mammal population). It is also
important that any marine policy consider the land/sea interface ... the relation-
ship activities on the land and in the sea have to one another.

42'

Section III

RECOMMENDATIONS

During the Symposium's presentations on the variety and diversity of marine resources
technical and management issues facing California's decision-makers, several subjects,
ideas or themes came up repeatedly. These crossed the spectrum of living and
nonliving, renewable and non-renewable resource issues and management concerns and
were discussed by most panels. During the core group deliberations, these themes
were further discussed and refined into the following:

* The ocean must be recognized as a "commons", an area where traditional
land use management concepts are generally less applicable.

� The "wet" and the "dry" sides of the coastal zone must be viewed as a
whole, as a unit, in both planning and management of the area.

* The interrelationships between the various marine resources and their
respective uses must be clearly identified and respected in any management
program.

� The vested rights of long-term user groups must be recognized in the
management processes while the importance of orderly and equitable distri-
bution of the benefits of the resources is stressed.

* All use and mangement practices must include -restoration and enchancement
to ensure long-term productivity and continuation of the resource for future
generations.

* Public participation is vital to effective management process; educate the
public on the importance of ocean resources and then enlist their participa-
tion in the early stages of marine policy making and conflict resolution.
For effective participation, the public must have access to the full range
of "facts" if they are to contribute to problem resolution rather than
becoming inflexible constituents.

* Encourage a strong public/private partnership for appropriate marine pro-
jects; perhaps designate a state agency to serve as a link with industry to
seek early solutions to potential problems.

* Strengthen the communication systems between the myriad of state and
federal agencies with jurisdiction over California's marine resources and
their various constituency groups.

* To be successful with such an array of agencies and user groups, there
must be methods and procedures for conflict resolution included in any
comprehensive management plan developed by the State.

* Data needs must be clearly defined: Is more research required or only an
improved network of data sharing? Establish a central inventory of existing
data banks, a clearinghouse for the exchange of information, to avoid
agency duplication of effort.

In addition to these common themes, the core group produced some specific sugges-
tions for future consideration. The group stopped short of taking any policy positions
or recommending a specific action for a state agency or the legislature. Each of the
30 members of the core group acted as individuals, not as official representatives of

their organizations; and, as individuals, not all members of the group agreed with
the statements or conclusions reported here.

In several areas, the group recommended that a state policy should be determined so
unified positions could be taken on upcoming issues and potential conflicts. One such
area was the proposed extension of coastal jurisdiction from three to twelve miles
and the potential use of OCS revenue share funds for increased state management
responsibility in the expanded area. It was also suggested that the State should take
a position on assuming responsibility, again with OCS revenue sharing, if a 200-mile
exclusive economic zone is established. Another area the group recommended policy
determination was, when feasbile and mutually-agreed-upon, in decentralizing regula-
tion and implementation of some marine resources management responsibilities by
transferring responsibility for carrying out specific projects to locally-based organi-
zations. No details for delegating such responsibility were discussed. The core group
suggested policy be made in the near term about radioactive waste dumping offshore
California. They also recommended developing a statewide coastal erosion plan which
would focus on reconstruction after disasters and reevaluating water quality standards
in light of aquaculture, fish and wildlife resources and waste dumping.

The core group discussed the most effective institutional arrangements for federal,
state and local government interaction. This included the need for establishing a
cooperative program between research organizations and state management agencies
to set research priorities so that issues most critical for management decisions would
receive priority for research efforts; working closely with industry, the scientific
community and the various user groups to establish data sharing networks to better
exchange information and reduce duplication of effort; and establishing some type of
inventory of data banks or a clearinghouse to better disseminate information. It
was stated that without long-term policy and financial support from state and
federal government there cannot be a very effective, all-inclusive data collection and
analysis process for marine resources; piecemeal data collection will not provide the
accurate information necessary for decision-makers.

The group suggested that techniques and mechanisms for conflict resolution be in-
cluded in future marine resource management plans to reduce controversy and
acrimony between the various constituency groups.

In each subject area discussed by a panel during the Symposium, the core group made
some suggestions-ideas that should be adopted in policy planning or some specific
action that could be undertaken by a state agency. These are presented as discussed
by the core group.

AQUACULTURE

Aquaculture facility siting decisions should be based on merit and contribution,
compatible with other uses of the area, and with full recognition of its coastal
dependent status. A flexible approach to zoning should be adopted to make available
for aquaculture uses the broadest range of compatible zones. Discharge regulations
and open ocean frontage needs should be reevaluated for the aquaculture industry.

COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES

The establishment of a California Fishery Management Council which would shift
management of California fisheries back to the State from the Pacific Northwest
Fisheries Management Council was suggested. The conflicts between fisheries and
marine mammals and fisheries and seismic vessels were recognized. The questions of
salmon ranching and genetic factors and the "tsole ownership of fisheries"' were
discussed with no resolution. The core group suggested that close coordination
between the Department of Fish and Game and the Coastal Commission should con-
tinue. This coordination has helped achieve sensitive, long-range land use planning
beneficial to fish and wildlife resources in the coastal zone and should help achieve
similar objectives in the marine environment. The group suggested that policy be
developed to actively protect the commercial fishing industry and that water quality
controls be reevaluated for fish and wildlife needs.

MARINE MAMMALS

Because of present jurisdictional conflicts over marine mammal issues, the group
suggested a single state agency may be best suited for coordination and integration.
institutional researchers and state and federal funding agencies should be encouraged
to undertake well-planned studies of the dynamics of mammal interaction with the
marine ecosystem. A strong state effort will be required to sort out the increasing
mammal/fisheries conflicts since single-interest constituencies are becoming more
polarized. There are parallels in land-based game management that could be
effective in this effort.

MARINE SANCTUARIES, REFUGES AND UNDERWATER PARKS

The numerous types and nomenclature of sancturaries, underwater parks and refuges
are confusing and often result in having the limited funding and protective efforts
available spread too thin to effectively protect the resource. The needs for preser-
vation and protection should be sorted out with an hierarchy of importance
established. Some areas should be set aside permanently for research only.

OFFSHORE ENERGY AND MINERAL ACTIVITIES

Offshore oil production and transportation was recognized as a most significant issue
but was not discussed in detail by the core group because of time constraints. The

group did suggest that policy guidelines should be developed to address ocean mining
waste disposal, siting of processing facilites and the potential economic benefits and
risks to the State.

MARINE POLLUTION

The State should develop an active position on nuclear and toxic waste disposal in
the nearshore ocean immediately. State and local health agencies should be involved
in all marine pollution issues at the earliest stages.

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

While the core group conceded that marine shipping often conflicts with other ocean
uses, it is necessary and important to the economic health of the State. The sugges-
tion was made that mandatory traffic control systems be established in the near
future along the California coast and in harbors where major conflict potential exists.

SHORELINE EROSION

A statewide policy on erosion control and management is needed. It was suggested
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' erosion study of the coast of California be ex-
panded to include other areas in addition to the present effort in San Diego County.
A new state plan should focus on reconstruction after disaster, beach by beach, with
efforts tied to funding available and collection of necessary data.

Conclusion

The Ocean Studies Symposium was the first step in a continuing process of looking at
the use and management of California's marine resources. The initial phase - the
project and conference, sponsored by the Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and
Game, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, and the William H.
Donner Foundation - ends with publication of this report.

The second step could be the development of a framework for a comprehensive state
marine resources management program. Symposium participants suggested that a good
way to do this would be for the State Legislature or an assigned agency to evaluate
the ideas generated at the Symposium.

In the State Assembly a resolution, "Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 15 . - Rela-
tive to Ocean Resources, was introduced by Assemblymen Sam Farr, Willie Brown,
Gerald Felando, William Filante, Dan Hauser, Tom Hayden, Robert Naylor, Jack
O'Connell and Steve Peace on December 27, 1982, and amended on January 26, 1983.
This resolution would "direct the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture to
evaluate an ocean studies symposium report prepared by the California Coastal
Commission and the Department of Fish and Game, to hold a hearing in the spring of
1983 on marine resource management, and to submit an action plan on marine
resource management to the Legislature by October 1, 1983, with assistance from the
Assembly Office of Research and the Senate Office of Resarch."1 The full text of
the resolution is included in Appendix D.

With such legislative interest and support, the second step in California's ongoing
effort to look at its future role in marine resources management is well underway.

Appendix A

HISTORY OF OCEAN STUDIES PROJECT

AND SYMPOSIUM

WILLIAM H. DONNER FOUNDATION GRANT

On January 21, 1982, Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission,
submitted a proposal to the William H. Donner Foundation of New York. The proposal requested
$55,000 to "provide the time, expertise and financial support to thoughtfully, carefully think through
the specific steps the Coastal Commission should take in approaching its future role in marine
resources." The proposal called for assessing current needs, such as data collection, increased regulatory
responsibility, coordination of existing agencies' efforts, and for clearly defining some next actions for
the Commission, such as staff expertise, size and allocation, new research or data management efforts.

The Donner Foundation awarded the grant in early March to the San Francisco Planning and Urban
Research Association (SPUR), a non-profit organization which would administer the grant funds for the
Coastal Commission. A project director, Virginia Lyle, a private consultant formerly with the U.S.
Department of the Interior, was hired, and the program was underway by April 1, 1982. Susan Hansch,
the Coastal Commission's marine resource analyst, was assigned to provide technical assistance and
program advice as needed in the project.

As preliminary planning progressed, the scope of the project broadened; instead of looking only at the
Coastal Commission and its future role, the grant would be used for a project involving all state
agencies concerned with marine resources management. The project would look at the State's future
role in marine resources management and see if solutions to current conflicts or clear directions for
future action would evolve. As the agency primarily responsible for the management and protection of
the State's living marine resources, the Department of Fish and Game was invited to play a significant
role in the study project and to co-sponsor the symposium.

The project was developed in three phases: a solicitation of policy papers on a range of marine
resource issues with primary focus on management concerns; a symposium to bring together principals
from the various government, industry, academic and environmental organizations to discuss common
concerns, share ideas about new technology, management issues and discuss options for the future; and
a report containing the policy papers, symposium proceedings and recommendations for policy changes
and/or administrative actions which would go to the Governor, the State Legislature, the Coastal
Commission, state and federal management agencies and the general public.

POLICY PAPERS

A call for policy papers went to over 600 state, local and federal government agencies, members of the
state legislature, national scientific research organizations, California's colleges and universities, appro-
priate industries and environmental organizations. The policy papers were to address the following
technical issues, with specific emphasis on management options and solutions Jurisdiction of the
Oceans Living Marine Resources; Offshore Mineral and Energy Resources and Industrial Activities;
Marine Pollution/The Ocean as a Dumping Ground; Marine Transportation; and, Shoreline Erosion.
Seventy-six authors were selected from the various disciplines to ensure a balanced response on each
issue.

The papers selected for presentation at the symposium covered the spectrum of marine resource
management issues. They did not provide in-depth analysis of political issues nor technical data, rather
they provided a broad overview of the complex concerns and the variety of issues facing lawmakers,
government regulatory agencies, industry, and public research institutions.

OCEAN STUDIES SYMPOSIUM

A Symposium was held to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and information and to allow
representatives of the various disciplines involved in marine resources to look at and discuss the broad
spectrum of issues rather than focus on their own technical specialities.

The Ocean Studies Symposium, held November 7-10, 1982, at the Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific
Grove, CA, was designed to allow intense information exchange and informal discussion among the
approximately 250 attendees. There were two days of technical presentations with sessions consisting of
a panel with speakers limited to five minutes for individual presentations, followed by a question and
answer period for audience participation.

The Symposium was structured in this manner to allow for maximum information exchange in a very
limited time, to eliminate concurrent sessions, and to provide as much audience-speaker interaction as
possible. The range of information presented painted a vivid picture of the complexity of marine
resource management concerns in California.

The Symposium began with an overview of state agency roles and responsibilities in marine resources
management. This allowed participants to gain perspective on the fragmentation of the state's regula-
tory and management responsibilities and to clearly understand current policies and practices. Follow-
ing the state overview, there were technical panels on: Law of the Sea/The National Role in Ocean
Management; Aquaculture; Commercial and Sport Fisheries; Marine Mammals; Marine Sanctuaries,
Underwater Parks and Refuges; Offshore Energy and Mineral Resources and Industrial Activities; Marine
Transportation; Marine Pollution; Shoreline Erosion; Management Tools Research, Conflict Resolution,
New Approaches for Managers; and, The State/Local Government Role.

William J. Whalen, Executive Director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association,
was the chairman of the Ocean Studies Symposium. His skillful handling of the overflow audience
and the long, intense sessions kept the Symposium on course. David Sibbet of Sibbet and Associates,
was selected to facilitate the symposium. Mr. Sibbet made wall-sized graphic charts of each speaker's
presentation; these charts were in audience view and were available for reference during the panel
presentatons. These visual aids helped focus and refine the presentations as well as allowed participants
to refresh their memory as the sessions continued.

Dr. Frank H. Talbot, Executive Director, California Academy of Sciences, was selected to serve as
chairmen of a group of panel moderators. Eleven panel moderators were chosen to guide the presenta-
tions of their panels and to summarize the various presentations for review by the core group. The
panel moderators attended a training session before the Symposium to meet each other, Dr. Talbot and
Mr. Whalen and to be introduced to David Sibbet and his work methods and learn how to best use Mr.
Sibbet to aid their panel's work. The panel moderator and panelists are listed in Appendix B with
reproductions of Mr. Sibbet's graphics.

Mr. Whalen, Mr. Sibbet and Dr. Talbot as well as Coastal Commission and Department of Fish and
Game staffers were included in the early stages of the Symposium planning to allow them clearer
understanding of the purposes and aims of the project and to draw upon their experience for program
improvements.

CORE GROUP

In order to facilitate discussion about future management options, a small group of senior level
officials representing all the disciplines involved in marine resources was invited to serve as a "core
group." The "core group" would be limited in size to allow easy information exchange and idea
sharing. Thr group consisted of 30 members selected for their interest and knowledge of California's
coastal resources and marine management concerns and as representatives of organizations managing or
using the resources. A list of members of the core group is included in the appendices.

Prior to the Symposium, core group members received copies of policy paper abstracts for review.
They attended a briefing/training session the day before the Symposium to prepare them for their role
during the conference. The core group listened to and participated in the technical sessions. They
met for four hours the final day of the Symposium to determine what action should be taken next.
The group reviewed panel summaries, then discussed goals, priorities and recommendations for future
action. These recommendations are discussed in the opening sections of this report.

Those serving on the core group served as individuals, not as official representatives of their organi-
zations, nor did they necessarily agree with all comments made by the core group.

Members of Core Group listening to Panel Moderators' summary reports.

Appendix B

CONFERENCE PANELS AND GRAPHICS

Naomi Schwartz, Chairwoman of the California Coastal Commission,
welcomes Symposium participants at opening session.

wt'4'<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ai

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE AGENCIES IN MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Department of Fish and Game - E. C. Fullerton
California Coastal Commission - Naomi Schwartz, and Mel Nutter, California Coastal Commission
State Lands Commission = Claire Dedrick

60
1a ses Fo Ws"

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE AGENCIES IN MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Department of Fis and Game - E. C. Fullerton
California Coastal Commission - Naomi Schwartz, and Mel Nutter, California Coastal Commission
State Lands Commission - Claire Dedrick

- cdvu car -

Water Resources Contrl Bord -Caroe Oniat
Coasal onsrvacy JoephPetill
San2 Fr a ncsio Ba Consrvaionad Deeopmn Comiso ihe .Wl

Ofic f lnnn adReerch~ - eiGen
12 CfRLr6L. ~ j~j~jw~ll. ba~ud 6
re~uire -nM

Watcz Resources Control Bomrd - Carole Onorato

Coastal Conservancy - Joseph Petrillo

San Francsico Bay Conservation and Development Commission - Michael B. Wilmar

Office of Planning and Research - Deni Greene

,~t...O '~1 4LTW ,:'-. /, 1-1_'b
*)PR...caff s. C " .' i- /"

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE AGENCIES IN MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (cont'd)
Department of Boating and Waterways - Marty Mercado

Air Quality Control Board - Gary Patton

Department of Parks and Recreation - Rod Tuttle

LNLF~~Ahl~~ (~Billi; 4

California Enery Commissi on - Michael E. Shapiro

LAW OF THE SEA /NATIONAL ROLE IN OCEAN MANAGEMENT

Moderator: John Temple Swing
Council on Foreign Relations
New York, NY

Pantelists Ronald S. Katz
Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett, Palo Alto, CA

Terry L. Leitzell
Bogle & Gates, Washington, DC

Eldon V. C. Greenberg
Galloway and Greenberg, Washington, DC

Robert W. Knecht
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA

William E. Westermeyer
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA

Michael E. Shapiro
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA

Rosella W. Shapiro
Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, CA

Samuel A. Bleicher
Blank, Rome, Comiksy, McCauley, Washington, DC

M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

I tcK
.,of 26
Kr Ie
0 5e
pebcns
A

mj
map

HAPZ 9 Rak
,-FaQT,51

UF-

AOUACULTURE

Moderator: Di. Fred S. Conte
University of California, Davis, CA

Panelists: Dr. Judith E. Hansen
Marine Bioassay Laboratory, Watsonville, CA

Dr. John L Dupuy
West Coast Aquaculture Foundation, Monterey, CA

Dr. William N. Shaw
Telonicher Marine Laboratory, Humboldt State University

Donald E. Conner
KELCO Division of Merck & Company, San Diego, CA

Ronald H. McPeak
KELCO Division of Merck & Company, San Diego, CA

Michael Neushul
Neushul Mariculture, Goleta, CA

Lad Handelman
California Sea Farms, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA

(AQA G/
____________________ -HAwvo 1V~w5MASS O*FCO15rAIPw

Ci~~&~~~-~ I~1q...AI~~~ee~1I 1n~c -
CAM ~ILes ql .. lie vh
4u0A e ( In ~m~rs~z qr~)

COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES PANEL

Moderator: Dr. Elizabeth L Venrick
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA

Panelists: Dr. David Hankin
Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA

Dr. Graham A. E. Gall
University of California, Davis, CA

Stephanie R. Thornton
Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association, Eureka, CA

Robert R. Abbot
Tiburon Center for Environment Studies, Tiburon, CA

Paul Sund
National Marine Fisheries Service, Tiburon, CA

Thomas L Wright
Chevron, USA, Concord, CA

(cG~defCItL _

laek area 8rt 8 , ~ V -

1. it, w 91ei

e8 '-k::)71,~;; ' ... . .. -
6 3�l>8A~ 0 8f

is8t

Dan Ray
California Coastal Commission, Eureka, CA

Bruce Fodge
California Coastal Commission, Eureka, CA

Christopher Toole
Marine Advisory Extension Service, Eureka, CA

Dr. Reuben Lasker
CalCOFI Coordinator, University of California, San Diego, CA

Robert D. Thornton
Nossaman, Krueger & Knox, Costa Mesa, CA

Susan K. Hori
Nossaman, Krueger, Knox, Costa Mesa, CA

Paul Olin
University of California, Davis, CA

bfmL I.,- c7tttLWN E/.eIJrM WI

(. r-4 / -

MARINE MAMMALS PANEL

Moderator: Dr. Charles D. Woodhouse
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History
Santa Barbara, CA

Panelists: Dr. Charles F. Cooper
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA

Brent S. Steward
Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute, San Diego, CA

Dr. Daniel Goodman
Scripps Institute, La Jolla, CA

Dr. Glenn R. VanBlaricom
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Simeon, CA

Dr. Leslie A. Dierauf
California Marine Mammal Center, Sausalito, CA

Dr. Thomas P. Dohl
University of California, Santa Cruz, CA

Ronn Storro-Patterson
The Whale Center, Oakland, CA

RINF a>9~v~ *mE~i RoRUUI~IF,, : <Get -tt-~,.:

I NPU0LTC2U O 4* -t de6n "'

!Mri 5 l4we - Il4UE 41-
a ?OHM 055ii
KDV zs",Awc

-VWTfV1~)/

a~~~~~~o )Pl Ks

MARINE SANCTUARIES. UNDERWATER PARKS AND REFUGES PANEL

Moderator: John Epting
Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA
Washington, DC

Panelists: Charles Mehlert
Department of Parks and Recreation, Monterey, CA

Gary Davis
Channel Islands National Park, Ventura, CA

Carol Pillsbury
Channel Islands National Park, Ventura, CA

LI -colp~i iZ~t~A ~ blL

72 \ PA? /

Neils West
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI

Maxine McCloskey
The Whale Center, Oakland, CA

Stephen Webster
Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA

Roy Lowe
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Newark, CA

L~~~~~C~~~~re ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ eaA)u

I~m~s~rv _ kt(RdvA 19n �
Kew d LJej > ,iA_'"' "T~cP~M.

* IAW-~i~;dWp~'OP~SI-~s~hli C

WA~~~7~~rL4 dak -
levelsners 4.1il~cE~' ~P~LI_~sptSU~7
~~I~~~ sterrc~~~~s t~~~tL~~~~tn~~n~~Z.~~t~~-~~-~-~~-~'1

aM~h~C~17n~ � h~bRrlDAY B~DT h ~ L2'R. CYG73

OFFSHORE ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES PANEL

Moderator: Conrad G. Welling
Ocean Minerals Company
Mountain View, CA

Panelists: Dr. Iraj Noorany
San Diego State University, San Diego

Dr. Dale Straughan
Dale Straughan International, Paramount, CA

Donald L Ziegler
Chevron, USA, Concord, CA

John B. Hundley
ARCO Oil and Gas Company, Bakersfield, CA

Dr. Don Maurer
Southern California Ocean Studies Consortium
California State University, Long Beach, CA

e *CO Cs A9L 4, c, Pa's

* E /us ol- e resd s r Soil - |

P pc-5,... uid
74~vs~P~s~nvm ra i=S. ~*

Kurt M. Shusterich, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, talks
about the future of the ocean mining industry in California.

e ~~c 0 WAYlen

~~~A~

OFFSHORE ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES PANEL (cont'd)
Dr. Robert A. P. Gaal
State Lands Commission, Long Beach, CA

Commander L. A. Onstad
U.S. Coast Guard, Long Beach, CA

Clinton P. Sherburne
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Sunnyvale, CA

Dr. Kurt M. Shusterich
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA

Patrick Kennedy
Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Philadelphia, PA

Dr. Robert B. Spies
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA

Cd be.u...e . { .'t:~ ~ePcs... I s~,,~_e . '>ede - Io.
aw-~t 'e J'l, 5 !' :T - q?9_._~'~-'-~) __eril . - . \.

", 1 ew- - S4ieaf

'I o-- 1 , sa s \-t. p.i VS

7S67r V;. iS. KOM REUE b

,2ILUOM

* ) [* PA1IY

- IfIUL4PM01.
AtA
C271t A
I1
tv Av0 S
bn

ofF.'t

Ia-Is .'
wtag

lv
a4

MARINE POLLUTION PANEL

Moderator: Dr. Welton L Lee
California Academy of Sciences
San Francisco, CA

Panelists: Kenneth S. Kamlet
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC

Willard Bascom
Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach CA

David D. Caron
Student, University of California Law School, Berkeley, CA

MO~RNE rl A- ; ' MF -~i~
MA~~~~~~~JMEI~ ~ ~~~~~A 4.I
PI5U,&T1&I ) ______ WhS��
�rcsjciI' j c� sfE4 H

Aesfbeftc -I-Cp~ /: ~11 __ i~oIE
Y Dup~~~sl;;~~td"~t~~,~!~~,~"~ybe~~ I $slo

* 1b2 0 *Pucy2'
FM PA L'b U F E I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~C~F~~ GDE d~S~dr
bI5ThIAi. 6F fl , 5Ir5LL

Douglas A. Segar
SEAMOcean, Inc., Wheaton, MD

Elaine Stamman
SEAMOcean, Inc., Wheaton, MD

Dr. Michael Martin
Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA

Dr. David W. Fischer
University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL

' Pi ,,,, -LA -b '
*Wm~D

tE L ttONE l aMaI\ (310 M

~~ I1I~ oo0 7~79

MARINE POLLUTION PANEL (cont'd)

Adrian M. Werner
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

David L Duncan
Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA

Dr. W. Jackson Davis
University of California, Santa Cruz, CA

David W. Alton
Food and Drug Administration, San Francisco, CA

Alice B. Berkner
International Bird Rescue Research Center, Berkeley, CA

Aps I

OiLAV1~R~ - f1hAr4l . bebc

~~~~~n~ dqt' -/~; n'2ord1~ri Sh~f ~6Imn seMDrtq

* 5O'/o rcjkases afLqc T*065 I) ~UfrCLLRjWt (kM iA./Ntm~It

~~b ~ ~ ~ se~~~~otkrkcll~~~~~~�liluo-Alo

Fri. e' *~s~�3'C~o
W --! " Sr�~~I(I)T~~E,)~~n , eq--------

80 1

Marine Pollution Panelist

MARINE TRANSPORTATION PANEL

Moderator: Dr. Don Walsh
Institute for Marine and Coastal Studies
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA

Panelists Peter A. Johnson
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC

Lt. Commander Jan E. TerVeen
U.S. Coast Guard, Long Beach, CA

Arent H. Schuyler, Jr.
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

lS'~ ~ ~ ,c a.~ ~oR- ~PHb CtFM/i -" � -;4'

8 2 mr a1go I X_ 0 -M

7'f~~~~~~~~~~~~~see,1

OE~em ~ &/~tt

SHORELINE EROSION PANEL

Moderaton~ L Thomas Tobin
Calif cenia Coastal Commission
San Francisco, CA

Panelists. Dr. Paul D. Komar
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR

Dr. Gary.B..Griggs
University of Calif ocnia
Santa Cruz, CA

Antony R. Orme
University of Calif ornia
Los Angelas, CA

Amalie Brown
University of California
Los Angeles, CA

Richard J. Seymour
Department of Boating and Waterways
La Jolla, CA

84 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LV

Daniel Muslin
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles, CA

Carl Enson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles, CA

William Allayuad
California Coastal commission
Santa Cruz, CA

Lou Terrell
San Diego Associations of Governments
Council, City of Del Mat
Del Mar, CA

Neil J. Maloney
California State University
Fullerton, CA

Dr. Derek J. Rust
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA

VW~___ CA56rn

in~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~XA F tO*o

.SAAI'- etet AM (ST1AOW
?"Hrpjw~
IME= -~ ~ ~ YTA

VW k06--8

MANAGEMENT TOOLS: RESEARCH. CONFLICT RESOLUTION. NEW APPROACHES PANEL

Moderator: Dr. Robert L. Friedheim
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA

Panelists: Joel W. Hedgpeth
Santa Rosa, CA

Richard J. Tinney, Jr.
Center for Environmental Education
Washington, DC

Dr. Peter K. Weyl
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY

Dr. George Jenkins
Pacific Ocean Policy Studies
Palo Alto, CA

j~. ~ s~s~y~cr . e~ P~ ~vi
Fa~nces oW)t~ 1 ?VAWV F FM ,~f~ . ?.,?

8 MIX.6 r s , @.

Dorothy Hallock
QCandler, AZ

James T. Chappcl
San Francisco, CA

Dr. Ruthann Convin
OCS Consultant, Marin County
Novato, CA

Dr. Michael J. Herz
The Oceanic Society
San Francisco, CA

Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain
Univccsity of California
Santa Barbara, CA

pounc~ . \rAS4J flI-( ~8 Z~"

*~ ~ ~~i - lOUI-CE~ . Fm -
JL~~~~~Aae~~~~~~I~ )EO I~n~xe\

MES 4. OwT mok O

MANAGEMENT-TOOLS: -RESEARCH. CONFLICT RESOLUTION. NEW APPROACHES PANEL (cont'd)

Phyllis Grifman
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA

Geoffrey H. Ball
Forum on Community and Environment
Palo Alto, CA

Charlotte Symons
Education Consortium for Productive Conflict
San Francisco, CA

Dr. William W. Murdoch
Univcrsity of California
Santa Barbara, CA

.R~oL~an~ '1p, AWo . .

Pdn e~ her RT_ - 88JJuv -

slims- 'IIil!

Panel on Management Tools: Research, Conflict Resolution and Other New Approaches.

STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S MANAGEMENT ROLE

Moderator: Michael B. Wilmar
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
San Francisco, CA

Panelists: Dr. James W. Rote
Assembly Office of Research
Sacramento, CA

Dr. Elmer A. Keen
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA

1-?'r' *_'- rr

* CN FLYc1177 ar2 as

I f = ttsl~~U~..'~,a e/j

Dr. Lowdon Wingo
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA

James Fawcett
University of Southaern California
Los Angeles

Carol Fulton
Friends of the Sea Otter
Carmel, CA

b - tvJ< rAeshrJ t lutll7s.;

'4,~~~~~~~~~'

1 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ ~. ~91

STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S MANAGEMENT ROLE (contd)

Lindell L. Marsh
Nossaman, Kreuger and Knox
Costa Mesa, CA

Vickie Alin
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Washington, DC

ow~~

Wi oumwe .
~ oil **1HML6.5 L)irAJ ue.

*~~~~~~~~~~~~..u MTER

SkmE.rJ~e 0to~
* Ff6. t~e~w 5PKE
A5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s.

92 6W a A F C18tp

92IJn ctt4C ~ \� '~qe~

-71m

N~~~~~K~~~~~b C~~~~~~~~O~~~~~ft~~Ar.p

&1,5~
___ ___ __ ___ ___ _ A K~N

5~~~~~~~~HF Y1mtL.l I-A,

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b -bDl a

5e(5,% mwlicCV4UA
~~~~~~~~~~~~Ca lo 6VIM'
OW~~~~~ VDv ~iEi~) t~

* CW 'OOCAV~aJ AkcT

IDEJ ~~ ~~f~tb ~e

vt~ <C ,~ Won

Is Ojai W"'ThTu OC

Chairman William J.Whalen at end of the Symposium with
Frank H. Talbot, right and Michael L. Fischer, center.

Appendix C

REPORT OF PANEL MODERATORS'

CHAIRMAN

REPORT OF PANEL MODERATOR S' CHAIRMAN

That the Ocean Studies Symposium was a success is due in no small measure to the hard work of the
Panel Moderators I am grateful to them for their help in organizing their panels and in the
production of their summaries for the Core Group meeting. They made the task of the Panel
Moderator's Chairman a sinecure.

The Symposium reflected the realities of the off-shore area by the great scope covered by the papers
and the airing of different viewpoints. Large conferences are usually divided into disciplinary or
functional units, and no one person is able to cover the whole conference. Here the deliberate
decision of the organizers to have all speakers presenting consecutively in one room forced them to
deal with salient points only, and gave participants a chance to experience the total conference. The
result was an overview, broad and rapid, of the extent of uses of California's marine resources, and
present and potential conflicts. Panel Moderators, after their first shock at the time constraints, worked
with their Panelists to cut all talks to the minimum. Although there is little doubt that some depth
was lost, I do not believe that there was much that was significant in scope or conflict that was not
reflected in the Symposium. Those who stayed the course watched an up-to-date picture develop that
was broader than one is normally able to observe. Conflicts and special pleadings were sometimes
obvious, but these were not swept quickly under the carpet. They exposed multiple use difficulties,
and although solutions to these were not found, sometimes ideas developed that pointed the way to
possible resolution.

This was not a perfect Symposium - none ever is - but it was successful in its educative value to its
participants, and for its very great breadth and its pointers to the way management might need to go. I
am grateful for the interaction with Symposium Chairman Bill Whalen and Facilitator David Sibbet, the
former for urbane and easy-going running of the meetings, and the latter for his sensitivity and speed
in getting us out of many difficult moments. And I thank the Panel Moderators for their efforts to
achieve good meetings, and production of summaries under time duress.

Frank H. Talbot
Chairman, Panel Moderators

Appendix D

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1983-84 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15

Introduced by Assemblymen Farr, Willie Brown, Filante,
Hauser, Hayden, O'Connell, and Peace

December 27, 1982

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 15-Relative to ocean resources.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

ACR 15, as amended, Farr. Ocean resources.

This measure would direct the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture to evaluate an ocean
studies symposium report prepared by the California Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish
and Game, to hold a hearing in the spring of 1983 on marine resource management, and to submit an
action plan on marine resource management to the Legislature by October 1, 1983, with assistance from
the Assembly Office of Research and the Senate Office of Research.

Fiscal committee: no.

WHEREAS, The economic value of the marine resources that California enjoys because of its 1,100-
mile boundary on the Pacific Ocean constitutes a natural wealth of enormous magnitude; and
WHEREAS, The marine resources off the shore of California have provided food, energy, recreation,
employment, and have historically contributed to the general welfare of our citizens and
WHEREAS, Man's activities in the marine environment can have a profound short-term and long-
term impact on that environment and can greatly affect the resources therein; and
WHEREAS, Man will increasingly be forced to rely on marine resource as other resources are
depleted, and our ability to protect, preserve, develop, and utilize these resources is related to our
understanding of multiple-use conflicts and comprehensive resource management; and
WHEREAS, The state's interest in the ocean has been fragmented, sporadic, and narrowly limited,
without statewide objectives for the management of marine resources or a clear statutory statement of
functional responsibility for marine resources as a whole; and
WHEREAS, The California Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Game jointly
sponsored an ocean studies symposium from November 7 to 10, 1982, which examined ocean resource use
conflicts and management alternatives; and
WHEREAS, The California Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Game will jointly
submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature in February 1983, highlighting the results of the
ocean studies symposium; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the
Legislature recognizes the importance and economic value of our marine resources and that
comprehensive resource management plans are urgently needed to guarantee the long-term viability of
these precious resources and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture evaluate the ocean studies
symposium report and recommend to the Legislature an action plan for implementation; and be it
further

103

RESOLVED, That the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture hold an oversight hearing in
the spring of 1983 on the matter of marine resource management, and with staff assistance from the
Assembly and Senate Offices of Research, submit an- action plan to the Legislature by October 1, 1983;
and be it further
RESOLVED, That in order to fulfill its prescribed duties, the Joint Committee on Fisheries and
Aquaculture seek the cooperation and assistance of the California Coastal Commission, the Department
of Fish and Game, the State Water Resources Control Board, the State Lands Commission, and other
state, local, and federal agencies with responsibility for marine resource management; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit a copy of this resolution to the
Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, to the Director
of the Assembly Office of Research, and to the Director of the Senate Office of Research.

NY,.
:'A; : A...

104
.<|. ii' P ", ' , ,', ' 'i ' :' 'i'. '; L , i ^ .. fj,, f , A, , , , , ., ,, S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix E

STATE AND FEDERAL ROLES

AND RESPONSIBILITIES

As part of the Ocean Studies Symposium planning, all state and federal government agencies
involved in marine resources issues were asked to submit a brief description of their role and
responsibilities. The following agencies' responses are included for your reference:

California Resources Agency
--Air Resources Board
--Coastal Commission
--Coastal Conservancy
--Department of Boating and Waterways
--Department of Fish and Game
--Department of Parks and Recreation
--San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

California State Lands Commission

California Energy Commission

California Seismic Safety Commission

California Department of Business, Transportation and Housing

California Governor's Office of Planning and Research

U.S. Department of Commerce
--NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
--NOAA/Office of Coastal Zone Management
--Pacific Fishery Management Council

U.S. Department of the Interior
--Bureau of Land Management
--Bureau of Mines
--Fish and Wildlife Service
--Minerals Management Service

U.S. Department of Transportation
--Coast Guard/llth and 12 Districts

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
--Food and Drug Administration

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Federal Maritime Commission

107

CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

The Air Resources Board's (ARB) role in marine resources management has focused primarily on air
quality aspects of oil and gas development in the state tidelands and the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). The ARB has also looked at air quality impacts resulting from marine transportation
activities unrelated to oil and gas development.

To put the role of the ARB into perspective, the following is a brief description of the responsibility
of the ARB and local air pollution control authorities. As provided in the California Health and
Safety Code, the ARB is the state agency charged with coordinating efforts to attain and maintain
ambient air quality standards. In California, the responsibility for controlling air pollution is divided
between the Air Pollution Control Districts IAPCDsJ and the state. The local APCDs have the primary
responsibility for controlling emissions from all stationary sources or non-vehicular sources. The state's
role is to control mobile sources, coordinate efforts to attain and maintain state and federal ambient
standards, upon the recommendation of the Department of Health Services.

State law invests primary responsibility for the control of stationary sources in local APCDs but also
invests review responsibility in the ARB. The ARB has overall responsibility for coordinating the
California air program and is the air pollution control agency for all purposes set 'forth in federal
law. Thus, the ARB reviews local plans to attain air quality standards, as well as local rules, regulations
and enforcement practices. If a review of a local program indicates a need for such, the ARB may hold
public hearings to determine if a local agency is satisfactorily carrying out its responsibilities under
state law. If a finding is made that the local agency is not fulfilling its responsibilities, the ARB is
empowered to undertake direct control activities.

Recently, there has been a number of air quality studies conducted by various government agencies that
concluded that emissions from offshore oil and gas activities are impacting onshore air quality. Many
of the coastal areas are currently violating state and federal ambient air quality standards. Thus, the
continued development of offshore oil and gas in the OCS without proper mitigation of the air quality
impacts will make it difficult for onshore areas to attain and maintain applicable ambient air quality
standards. If the federal standards are not attained, the Environment Protection Agency can impose a
number of sanctions on the state such as withholding funds for highway and sewer treatment facilities
and a moratorium on new construction.

It is for these reasons that the ARB has been very active in the review of offshore projects and has
supported the position that emissions from such projects should be mitigated. As one means of
pursuing whatever remedies are available to ensure emissions from onshore facilities are dealt with
appropriately, the ARB provides assistance to the California Coastal Commission when a determination
"of consistency with the California Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) must be made for a project
that may impact marine air resources. The U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act mandates that the air
quality requirements of state and local governments be incorporated into any CZMP. In turn, the Act
requires that all OCS plans affecting any land use or water use be consistent with the CZMP.

The CZMP provides that new industrial development shall be located where it will not have significant
adverse effects, whether individually or cumulatively, on coastal resouces. Present federal air quality
review fails to take into account the cumulative offshore impacts of many OCS projects, each of which
may individually be exempted from all air pollution control by virtue of Department of Interior
regulations. Therefore, a determination of consistency with regard to cumulative air quality impacts
and their mitigation is necessary in order to preserve the quality of marine air resources. The ARB
provides technical assistance to the California Coastal Commission in making the determination.

108

Marine vessel emissions along California's coastline have a significant impact on the air quality of
coastal areas, especially in the South Coast Air Basin and the San Francisco Bay Area; such emissions
are also quantifiable and are largest during activities which occur in dose proximity to the onshore
facilities with which they are associated. The ARB has been particularly concerned with marine vessel
emissions that come ashore and reduce the ability of the area to attain and maintain the state and
federal ambient air quality standards.

Emissions from marine vessels are not regulated at the state level in California. However, emissions from
these sources are regulated by the rules and regulations of several local APCDs. Such regulations
require emissions from marine vessels to be included when calculating the emissions from that source
for new source permitting purposes. This means that marine vessel emissions are included as emissions
from a stationary source when determining the air quality impacts from the source.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

The 1976 Coastal Act was enacted by the California State Legislature to provide for the conservation
and development of California's 1,100-mile coastline. It established a unique state and local partner-
ship to assure that public concerns of statewide importance were reflected in local decisions about
coastal development. The Act followed four years of coastal regulation under Proposition 20 (the
"Coastal Initiative"), which established the Coastal Commission in 1972. The Act is based on recom-
mendations in the Coastal Plan that was prepared by the Commission under Prop 20 and submitted to
the Legislature in 1975.

The Coastal Act enacts state policies covering such matters as public access to the coast, coastal recrea-
tion, the California marine environment, coastal land resources, and coastal development, including
industrial development. Each local government along the coast (15 counties and 52 cities) is incor-
porating these policies in its own Local Coastal Program.

Under the Act, each of the state's 67 coastal cities and counties must prepare its own land use plan and
zoning ordinances to protect coastal resources and set guidelines for future developments. The Coastal
Commission must determine that these plans and ordinances, Local Coastal Programs (LCPs), conform
with policies in the Coastal Act. Once a city or county has an approved LCP, it can issue its own
coastal permits. Only specific types of permits may be appealed to the State Commission. Cities and
counties are reimbursed for the cost of preparing the LCPs. Under 1981 legislation, cities and counties
with certified Land Use Plans must issue their own coastal permits while they continue to prepare
zoning ordinances. Until the ordinances are approved by the Commission, all of these local coastal
permits may be appealed to the Commission.

Neither Proposition 20 nor the Coastal Act called for a moratorium on coastal development.. Over 95
percent of the more than 50,000 coastal permits processed since 1973 have been approved by the Com-
mission, many with conditions that make the project conform with Coastal Act policies such as public
access. When a permit is denied, the Commission often bases part of its denial on the need to allow
the local government to complete its LCP. Once the LCP is completed, many of these projects can be
resubmitted and approved if they conform to the local plan.

Under the Coastal Act, most structures or activities that modify land or water use in the coastal zone
require a development permit from the Coastal Commission. However, most repairs and improvements
to single-family homes, other structures and public works facilities are exempt. The critieria used by

109

the Commission for granting or denying permits are the Coastal Act policies or the policies in an
approved Land Use Plan for the area In addition, the Commission has adopted interpretive guidelines
to help permit applicants and local governments understand previous Commission decisions on such
Coastal Act policies as public access or wetlands

The California Coastal Commission has 12 voting members and 3 non-voting members. Six of the
voting members are "public members," and six are local elected officials who represent coastal districts.
All voting commissioners are appointed by either the Governor, Senate Rules committee, or the Speaker
of the Assembly; each appoints four commissioners, two public members and two elected officials. Each
commissioner may appoint an alternate to serve during his or her absence. The Secretary of the
Resources Agency, Secretary of the Business and Transportation Agency, and the Chairperson of the
State Lands Commission serve as nonvoting members and may appoint a designee to serve in their place.

In addition to its Local Coastal Program work and reviewing coastal development permits, the Com-
mission must, among other tasks, perform the following:

review certain federal activities (including plans to explore and extract oil and gas from the
Outer Continental Shelf) for consistency with California's federally approved Coastal Management
Program;

. allocate federal Coastal Energy Impact Program funds to jurisdictions affected by coastal energy
developments;

� review and certify long-range development plans for major public works, and state universities
and colleges;

. submit to the State Energy Commission maps showing all areas of the coast where, under the
standards of the Coastal Act, power plants cannot be built, and update these maps every two years;
and

� work to provide safe, convenient access to the shoreline.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY

California's Coastal Conservancy is a unique State agency which combines innovative techniques of land
acquisition, capital improvement projects, and creation of local or private/nonprofit institutions to
manage coastal resources. Often the conservancy plays the role of catalyst to motivate other agencies,
landowners, and citizens groups to cooperate in completion of complex projects.

Several of the Conservancy's program areas, notably resource enhancement, urban waterfronts develop-
ment, and public access directly contribute to better management and use of marine resources.

A major effort in the enhancement program is the development and implementation of Estuarine
Sanctuaries and related projects. The Conservancy is the lead agency in land acquisition for the
Tijuana River National Estuarine Sanctuary, southern California's largest tidally flushing estuary. Both
OCZM grant monies and the Conservancy's own LCP implementation fund will be used. The Conser-
vancy led an effort to secure $50,000 in Environmental License Plate Funds to design an interpretive
center for Tijuana Estuary. Participatory workshops involving members of the education and scientific

110

community are being used to work out the site plan and design of facilities, which will be constructed
and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation. A third Conservancy effort in the Estuary
involves the restoration of 20 acres of degraded wedand. Wetlands ecologists and volunteers fielded by
a nonprofit organization are cooperating in this effort to test several restoration techniques.

In the Tomales Bay area, the Conservancy has just begun a series of community workshops to solicit
ideas for specific restoration projects, and for the management of the Tomales Bay watershed. This
round of work should conclude with several specific restoration activities, as well as a framework to
unify the many agencies and interests operating in the area.

The Conservancy is working with the County of Marin Open Space District and the Wildlife Conser-
vation Board on an ambitious project of land acquisition and restoration in the Rush Creek area of the
Petaluma Marshes. In the Elkhorn Slough Watershed, the Conservancy is exploring ways to complement
the existing Estuarine Sanctuary through acquisition of land or easements, restoration of selected areas,
and erosion control on the slopes draining into the estuary.

Several projects in the urban waterfronts program benefit commercial and sport fishing. The Conser-
vancy will participate in the restoration of the Spud Point Harbor in Bodega Bay. Fully 80 percent of
the 243 berths included in this project will be allocated to commercial craft. The project has been
supported by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Association, as well as Sonoma County.
Funding is provided through a partnership of the Conservancy Department of Boating and Waterways,
and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Part of a larger package of viewshed protection and open
space preservation projects, Spud Point implements a major recommendation of Investinr for Prosoeritv
20 year master plan.

Another major restoration effort is the effort to rehabilitate the city-owned T-pier in Morro Bay. This
project provides berthing facilities for the exclusive use of commercial boats, and represents the
Conservancy's first total restoration of a pier. Local commercial fishermen, as well as the tourist
industry have expressed stong support for this project.

Space for public recreational fishing is provided at both Spud Point and Morro Bay, as well as the
conservancy's projects at Stearns Wharf, Santa Monica Pier, and Santa Cruz Pier. Stearns Wharf is
completed and returning revenues to the City of Santa Barbara through its commercial facilities; Santa
Cruz and Santa Monica are approved and proceeding through the implementation stage.

Senate Bill 1096 (Keene), approved by the Legislature during the last session, directs the Conservancy "in
cooperation with the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Boating and Waterways, the
California Coastal Commission, and the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture to prepare and
submit to the Legislature a report on the adequacy of existing and planned wharfs, harbors, off loading
facilities and other onshore facilities needed by the California commercial fishing industry." The
report, due as an interim draft February 1, 1983, will provide the basis for updating the State's policy
for assisting a priority coastal use.

On two occasions, the Conservancy has provided either funding or assistance in projects to deal with
erosion threatening public beaches. The Conservancy provided $12,000 of the approximately 85,000
needed to install a Longaard tube in the City of Del Mar. The Conservancy's participation in a "rapid
response" capacity enabled the demonstration of the feasibility of a 700 foot section of a coated plastic
tube designed to trap beach sand with minimal cost and environmental impact. The Department of
Boating and Waterways together with the Scripps Institute are monitoring the effectiveness of the tube,
to help decide whether a 5,000 foot installation should be funded along the entire beach. The Conser-
vancy also provided assistance to the City of Oceanside to obtain funding for a bypass system to
stablilize coastal beaches.

111

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS

The California Department of Boating and Waterways administers two programs concerning the manage-
ment of marine coastal resources. These programs, which enhance and provide for improved public
access to the California coastline, include the protection and stabiliztion of coastal beaches and the
development of boating facilities.

As the state's recreational boating agency, the Department provides a variety of programs for the
construction of boating facilities in inland and coastal areas. To meet the increasing demand for
trailerable and cartop boat facilities, the Department provides grants to cities, counties and other
governmental agencies for the development of boat launching facilities. These facilities are open to the
public free of charge and are operated and maintained by the local agency receiving the grant.

The Department also plans and funds the development of boating facilities throughout the State Park
System and on other state owned lands.

In addition, low-interest loans to cities, counties and special districts are provided for the construction
and improvement of small craft harbors. Marina facilities funded by the Department can include the
whole spectrum of project features from the breakwater to the public shoreline walkways. Berthing
facilities can be provided for recreational as well as commercial fishing vessels. On the average, the
Department appropriates more than $9 million each year for marina construction loans.

Environmental issues have played an important role with respect to the development of marinas in
California. With the creation of various state and local plans and policies, the protection of wetlands,
the ecology of the native habitat at a marina site, public access to the shoreline, and visual and
aesthetic appearances are now important considerations in each of the Department's projects.

The California Coastal Act was designed to meet the objectives of protecting the coast as a critical
natural resource and of accommodating public needs, including recreation. Boating is only one of
many recreational uses of the coastal zone, yet the importance of this segment is demonstrated by the
fact that recreational boating, classified along with commercial fishing, is separated from the rest of the
recreational activities of the coast in the policies of the 1976 Coastal Act. Section 30224 of the Act
clearly states that recreational boating use of coastal waters is to be "encouraged" through the devel-
opement of dry storage facilities and of public launch sites.

The California Coastal Commission and local governmental agencies have permit authority over all
recreational boating facility development in the coastal zone. The Coastal Act guides development by
establishing specific limits or criteria which affect the location, design and types of facilities. These
criteria directly affect the parameters within which this agency and all those who would develop
boating facilities can operate. These policies regulate the siting, design and use of marinas and asso-
ciated structures, such as breakwaters and seawalls. They also call for the regulation of new dredging
and filling, as well as maintenance dredging for existing boating facilities.

Facility development near or in wetland areas is permitted only to the extent of providing an entrance
channel to a marina, or in some cases, in conjunction with restoration of a previously dredged wetland.
The dredging and filling of most wetlands, estuaries, and other biologically sensitive coastal areas for
marina development is not allowed. Breakwaters and similar marina-related structures must be designed
to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Also, mitigation, such as marsh
creation for disturbance of coastal areas, may be required.

The Department plans and develops its projects in accordance with criteria that have been established
by other federal, state and local regulatory agencies. It also follows criteria that have been developed
over the years from involvement with environmental reporting processes, permit processes, public

112

hearings conducted by local project-sponsoring entities, and meetings with agencies that express con-
cerns with the environmental consequences of projects.

The second program area of the Department involves beach erosion. The erosion of California's
shoreline is a serious problem confronting coastal planners. Approximately 1,500 miles of the 1,810
miles of California's shoreline are subject to erosion. Storm waves from across the Pacific Ocean as
well as those locally generated are continuously eroding and reshaping the coastline. The natural
erosion process has been accelerated by flood control and water development projects that have pre-
vented the transport of sand to sustain protective beaches. The natural erosion process has also been
accelerated in some instances by the installation of certain piers, breakwaters, groins, and coastal
developments. These situations have caused serious damage to shoreline properties and facilities and
the loss of many recreational beaches.

The Department of Boating and Waterways is designated as the public agency responsible for adminis-
tering the beach erosion control program for the State of California. The Department is authorized to
study erosion problems in order to improve present knowledge of oceanic forces and shoreline condi-
tions, act as an advisor to all agencies of government, plan and construct protective works, and co-
sponsor the funding of local beach erosion control projects and the stabilization of beaches and
shoreline areas to the extent that funds are appropriated by the Legislature.

The Department has participated in the development of virtually all of the beach erosion control
projects undertaken by the federal government in California.

The Department has also developed, and now operates in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, a
unique, onsite wave data collection system that provides California with the most comprehensive coastal
wave climate information of any coastline in the world.

The Department is directing its major effort in developing regional solutions for those sections of the
coastline with serious erosion problems. The development of regional solutions rather than "postage
stamp", site-by-site construction projects will assure that state funds are used in the most effective
manner to achieve beach erosion protection objectives.

Currently, the Department's financial participation in shoreline erosion protection projects is guided by
a Resources Agency policy. This policy states that coastal sections to be protected should contain
substantial and valuable public-owned land or facilities of greater value than the cost of the proposed
project, or the protection scheme should provide, maintain, or improve the public use and enjoyment
of the beach or shoreline. The existing policy recommends that more state financial participation is
justified on projects that provide a greater amount of public benefits. The key factors in determining
the level of cost sharing are: public use, public access and public property.

The state does not have a public trust to protect the shoreline where the public benefits outweigh the
public costs. Government has a responsibility to provide for the common good of present and future
generations. Funding for beach erosion control projects is becoming increasingly scarce and these
public safety projects must compete with other projects for funding.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Generally, the responsibilities of the Department of Fish and Game, as defined by law, are the adminis-
tration and enforcement of the Fish and Game Code (Section 702) and the laws as implemented, inter-
preted and made specific in Tide 14 of the California Administrative Code (CAC).

113

To evaluate the full realm of Department responsibilities in the marine environment and the legal basis
for its activities would require a detailed review of the Fish and Game Code and Title 14, CAC.
However, in general terms, the Department is principally responsible for the management and protection
of the State's living marine resources. The Department has also been identified under CEQA as lead
agency for purposes of aquaculture review and is further identified in the Coastal Act, along with the
Fish and Game Commission, as the principal state agencies responsible for the establishment and control
of wildlife and fishery management programs.

Management and regulation of California's living marine resources by the Department are accomplished
primarily through monitoring of fisheries and enforcement of regulations affecting the taking, possession,
landing and, in some instances, marketing and transportation of marine species. Regulations include
permit and license provisions, restrictions when necessary on the size, number and variety of species
taken and the type, use and design of fishing gear. The Fish and Game Commission has also been
delegated the authority to lease state water bottoms for aquaculture purposes and to lease specific state
waters for the harvesting of kelp.

Also, it should be noted that the broad authority for the regulation of commercial fisheries has been
retained by the Legislature. However, specific management responsibilities have been delegated by the
Legislature to the Fish and Game Commisssion and the Department (Sections 200, 201 and numerous
other code sections). The objectives which guide the Department's management and regulation of
aquatic resources are generally described by policies established under Section 1700 of the Fish and Game
code.

Generally, the objectives of the Department's Marine Resources Program are to maintain and enhance
marine fish, plant and animal resources and to provide for the optimum harvest of these resources by
sport and commercial fisheries. Studies monitor the population sizes and fluctuations of marine fish,
shellfish, and plants. Investigations examine the effects of the environment and man's activities on these
resources. The Department also develops techniques and assists private industry in culturing some
shellfish species. Management recommendations are developed to protect marine resources and to
provide for their wise use and enjoyment.

FISH AND GAME CODE:
CHAPTER 7. CONSERVATION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES
(Chapter 7 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 88)

1700. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to encourage the conservation,
maintenance, and utilization of the living resources of the ocean and other waters under the
jurisdiction and influence of the state for the benefit of all the citizens of the state and to
promote the development of local fisheries and distant-water fisheries based in California in
harmony with international law respecting fishing and the conservation of the living
resources of the oceans and other waters under the jurisdiction and influence of the state.
This policy shall include the following objectives:

(a) The maintenance of sufficient populations of all species of aquatic organisms to insure
their continued existence.
(b) The recognition of the importance of the aesthetic, educational, scientific and non-
extractive recreational uses of the living resources of the California Current.
(c) The maintenance of a sufficient resource to support a reasonable sport use, where a
species is the object of sport fishing, taking into consideration the necessity of
regulating individual sport fishery bag limits to the quantity that is sufficient to
provide a satisfying sport.
(d) The growth of local commercial fisheries, consistent with aesthetic, educational,
scientific, and recreational uses of such living resources, the utilization of unused
resources, taking into consideration the necessity of regulating the catch within the

114

limits of maximum sustainable yields, and the development of distant-water and
overseas fishery enterprises.
(e) The management, on a basis of adequate scientific information promptly promulgated
for public scrutiny, of the fisheries under the state's jurisdiction, and the participation
in the management of other fisheries in which California fishermen are tengaged, with
the objective of maximizing the sustained harvest.
(Added by Stats. 1970, Ch.88)

CHAPTER 7.2 TROUT MANAGEMENT
(Chapter 72 (commencing with Section 1725) added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 847)

1725. This act shall be known as the Trout and Steelhead Conservation and Management
Planning Act of 1979.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 847)

1726. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to:

(a) Establish and maintain wild trout stocks in suitable waters of the state which are
readily accessible to the general public as well as in such waters in remote areas.
(b) Establish angling regulations designed to maintain the wild trout fishery in such waters
by natural reproduction.
(Add by Stats. 1979, Ch. 847.)

1726.4 It is the intent of the Legislature that the department, in administering its existing
wild trout program, shall conduct a biological and physical inventory of all California trout
streams and lakes to determine the most suitable angling regulations for each stream or lake.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

The California Department of Parks and Recreation owns and manages 112 diverse units on the Cali-
fornia coast. These recreation areas, beaches, parks, reserves, and preserves encompass more than 220
miles of the state's 1,076 mile coastline.

In its land ownership and management, the Department attempts to satisfy three sometimes conflicting
missions the preservation of natural values, the preservation of cultural values, and the provision of
recreational opportunities. The purpose of all three missions is to provide a wide variety of educa-
tional, recreational and inspirational benefits to the visiting public. The emphasis on preservation is
strongest with preserves and reserves, while units classified as state beaches and recreation areas may be
subject to considerable environmental manipulation in order to support recreational uses.

Within the context of proper resource management, the Department attempts to provide for appropriate
public access to and use of the ocean waters and sea bed abutting its coastal properties. The major
public uses here are recreational in nature, and include swimming, boating, snorkling, scuba-diving,
nature observation, fishing, and the gathering of other wildlife, such as abalone.

Direct departmental management of waters and sea bed offshore its units is circumscribed by the fact
that these areas are within the jurisdiction of other agencies. The fish and wildlife resources are under
the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game. The sea bed itself - up to the 3 mile
limit - is under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission. As exception to the last

115

statement, there are 9 areas offshore Park Department units which the Commission has leased to the
Department. However, these leases are of limited term and offer the Department little control over
conflicting developments or activities.

In the management of offshore lands and waters for the benefit of future generations and current
visitors, the Department is concerned with development which may impair such aspects as air quality,
water quality, esthetics, and the maintenance of marine ecosystems, as well as the public's safety and
convenience. A variety of offshore and onshore development in the areas of energy, transportation, and
waste disposal pose potential threats in many units.

Jurisdiction and control in these nearshore ocean ares lies with a host of federal, state, and local
governmental agencies. The Department's specific knowledge regarding many potential threats is
limited, as is its staff's capacity to forsee problems and act appropriately. The Department's ability to
directly bring needed changes or enforce protective measures is even more limited.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission is a state planning and regulatory
agency with regional responsibility for San Francisco Bay and the Suisun March. It administers a
permit system, directly for the Bay and through local government for the Suisun Marsh.

San Francisco Bay consists of approximately 484-square miles of tidal area and approximately 1,p00
miles of shoreline. Much of the shoreline is urbanized and many acres were diked-off before the
Commission came into being. But there are also significant natural areas, especially in the North Bay
and along the Carquinez Straits and Suisun and Honker Bays. The Suisun Marsh, administered under a
separate law and plan, consists of approximately 88,000 acres of diked-off marsh mostly used for duck
hunting and wildlife preserve. The Marsh with other areas in the Bay are an essential part of the
Pacific Flyway.

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) came into existence in 1965
as a temporary agency responsible for studying San Francisco Bay and preparing a plan to protect the
Bay from uncontrolled, indiscriminate filling while also providing for the orderly growth and develop-
ment of the many water-related activities that depend on the Bay. During 1966 through 1968, the
Commission gathered information on all aspects of the Bay and held public hearings to hear comments
on twenty-seven technical reports that discussed the major physical, social, economic and institutional
aspects of the Bay. These reports led to findings and policies for the future of the Bay eventually
incorporated in the San Francisco Bav Plan that the Legislature had directed the Commission to
prepare. In 1969 when the Plan was submitted to the Legislature, the Commission was made a per-
manent state agency with regulatory authority over filling, dredging and changes of uses within all tidal
areas of the Bay, a 100-foot shoreline band inland from the Bay, saltponds and managed wetlands. Later
certain tributaries to the Bay were added. In the 1969 version of the McAteer-Petris Act, the Legislature
adopted findings about the Bay and recognized the Bay plan as establishing state policy for the con-
servation and development of the Bay. Permits are issued for projects that are consistent with the
McAteer Act and the Bay Plan. Inconsistent projects are not allowed.

The Commission is composed of 27 commissioners who represent various federal, state, and local
agencies and the public. Five of the Commissioners are appointed by the Governor as public repre-
sentatives, one Commissioner is appointed by each of the nine Bay Area Counties, four Commissioners
are city representatives appointed by the Association of Bay Area Governments, and five Commissioners

116

are state officials, one each appointed by the Director of Finance, the State Lands Commission, the
Resources Agency, the Business and Transportation Agency and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The Speaker of the Assembly and the Rules Committee of the Senate also each appoint
a Commissioner. The District Engineer of the San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers and the
Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX are also Commissioners but may not
vote on permit matters. There are also two legislators who sit as a joint investigative committee.

Since the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Plan, much of the Commission's work concerns hearing
and deciding permit applications. But the Commission also studies all aspects of San Francisco Bay.
Current planning work includes the preparation, jointly with the Metropolitan Transportation Com-
mission, of a regional port plan for the Bay, the completion of a study on diked historic baylands near
the Bay that retain substantial wetland values, a study of water quality changes in Bay waters that have
occurred since 1969, and a study of fresh water inflow to the Bay. There is also on-going planning
concerning airport development, Coastal Conservancy in the Bay, and requests for information about the
Bay and the Commission's activities.

In 1974 the Commission was assigned the task of preparing a protection plan for the Suisun Marsh, the
last remaining large marsh in the State. After a two year study, the Commission presented the Suisun
Marsh Protection Plan to the Legislature which enacted the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act instructing
the Commission to administer the plan. This plan, unlike the San Francisco Bay Plan, does not
envision significant development. Also, local governments administer permits consistent with the
policies of the Marsh Plan and Act. Local governments with jurisdiction in the Marsh are also man-
dated to prepare local protection programs for the Marsh for Commission consideration and possible
certification. To date five of the seven programs have been completed and certified. Two remain to
be completed. This approach is analagous to the local coastal programs that the Coastal Commission
administers.

The Commission has seven primary responsibilities. It must act on permit applications for work within
or adjacent to the Bay within 90 days of the filing of an application. It must review and update the
San Francisco Bay Plan by undertaking any necessary planning studies. It must act on permit appli-
cations for work within certain parts of the Suisan Marsh that are not administered by local govern-
ments and hear appeals for those portions that are administered by local governments. It must review
and update, as necessary, the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. It must review and certify or return with
the reasons local protection programs prepared by local governments for the Suisun Marsh. It must
review federal activities for consistency with the San Franciso Bay segment of the approved Management
Program for California. It must monitor activities throughout the Commission's jurisdiction to discover
any violations of BCDC plans, acts or permits and take appropriate enforcement action.

In terms of subject matter, the Bay Plan contains findings and policies on a wide variety of subjects
relating to the Bay. Examples include findings and policies on fish and wildlife, marshes and mudflats,
water pollution, water surface area and volume, shell deposits, climate, saltponds and managed wetlands.
The Plan also contains policies regulating development in the Bay and on the shoreline for ports,
water-related industry, airports, recreation, and other uses. Other policies govern filling, dredging and
changing uses. The Commission's work in the Suisun Marsh parallels the Bay but with two major
exceptions. The Suisun Marsh Act does not allow significant development in the Marsh and permits are
to be administered by local governments.

Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1980, all federal projects and other federal activities
that directly affect the Bay are reviewed for consistency with the San Francisco Bay segment of the
California Management Program. BCDC's segment includes the laws, plans, regulations and similar
material that govern the Bay. The Commission also reviews requests by private parties for federal
approvals of projects that are in or affect coastal waters administered by the Commission. These
consistency determinations and certifications are administered in a similar manner that the Coastal
Commission uses for the remainder of the California Coast.

117

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION

Public ownership of land by the state can be traced to the date of California's admission into the union
in 1850. Under the "Equal Footing" doctrine, California was admitted to the union with the same rights,
sovereignty, and jurisdiction as the original states. Accordingly, tile to all tide and submerged lands
and the lands beneath inland navigable waters was vested to the state by the constitution.

In 1938, the legislature established the State Lands Commission, successor to the office of the surveyor
general, and the division of state lands in the department of finance, to manage and supervise these
lands.

The Commission then became the steward of state lands. These lands consist of sovereign lands -- those
which California acquired by virtue of her sovereignty-and grant lands -- those which were acquired by
federal land grant. Sovereign lands include all tide and submerged lands underlying the Pacific Ocean
and extending from the mean high tide line seaward for three nautical miles, and those submerged lands
underlying the beds of navigable inland waterways. Grant lands include those acquired from the federal
government by virtue of a legislative grant and include school lands, the 16th and 36th sections of each
township or lands selected in lieu thereof, and swamp and overflowed lands. Some of the sovereign
lands are also referred to as "granted lands" because the administrative control of these lands has been
transferred by the legislative to local public agencies.

The Commission is composed of two elected officials, the state controller and the Lieutenant Governor;
and one gubernatorial appointee, the State Director of Finance. The Commission currently is landlord
for more than 4.5 million acres of land belonging to the people of the state.

The Commission is assisted by a staff of over 250 specialists in mineral resouces, land boundary deter-
mination, land management, petroleum engineering, and natural and environmental sciences. Public
meetings are held each month at which interested groups may address the Commission. The Commission
has pursued a philosophy that environmental concerns are paramount to the citizens of California and
has demonstrated that these concerns can be successfully blended with economic considerations; all
proposals for the use of state lands must have the approval of the Commission.

The California public resources code, (division 6, section 6301, et seq.), specifies the role, authorities and
responsibilities of the State Lands Commission. Section 6301 provides in part:

"The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all ungranted tidelands and
submerged lands owned by the state and the beds of navigable rivers, streams, lakes,
bays, estuaries...

The Commission shall exclusively administer and control all such lands, and may
lease or otherwise dispose of such lands, as provided by law.."

Pursuant to that authority, the State Lands Commission maintains management jurisdiction over all state-
owned lands previously described. The Commission also exercises residual state authority, in a super-
visorial capacity, over lands granted by the legislature to local government.

The Commission judiciously manages these lands under a multiple land use concept. Unlike its state
agency counterparts, the Commission, as the major state landowner, is not obligated to lease, sell, or
dispose of its lands. The Commision's lease considerations are geared toward the statewide public
benefit from the use of such lands in a manner consistent with environmental protection and enhance-
ment. Along with this, enabling legislation charges the Commission with the stewardship of the public
trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries. The Commission, therefore, is the primary, designated
custodian to protect and safeguard the public's rights pursuant to this public trust.

118

The Commission has, for example, exercised its trust authority, at its meeting of October 28, 1982, over
approximately 160 acres of wetlands adjacent to the City of Albany in San Francisco Bay. The Com-
mission found that it was in the public interest to preserve such lands in their natural state as an
ecological unit for scientific study, open space and wildlife habitat. The area will be managed by the
state Department of Fish and Game as a lessee with the Commission.

The Commission's current programs also address increasing pressures for industrial and energy develop-
ment, living space, open space, wetlands preservation, recreation, and aesthetic enrichment. The daily
demands for the use of state lands under the jurisdiction of the Commission include the following
development requests

A) Construction of piers, business establishments, marinas, marine terminals for oil and gas, pipelines,
electrical transmission lines and roadways;
B) Channelization and dredging projects;
C) Offshore and onshore oil and gas development;
D) Salvage operations;
E) Geothermal and other alternative energy development;
F) Timber harvesting and cattle grazing;
G) Major industrial plants and thermal powerplants;
H) Mineral extraction;
I) Wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation.

The Commission authorizes and sets fees at public hearings for the use of state lands. Equitable, fair
market value rental and royalty rates are assessed for use of state lands and resources. Because the uses
of state lands and resources are as varied as the character of the lands themselves, the Commission has
developed different approaches to setting rental rates for various types of projects in order to guarantee
a fair value for the use of state lands and resources. For example, applicants for geothermal leases are
generally assessed a fee based upon the percentage of developmental profits; minimum charges for
pipeline rights-of-way are based on the area of required land; and additionally throughout (fees per unit
of product transported) or percentage of gross income charges may be assessed for larger commercial
facilities such as marine transport terminals.

The goal of the Commission's leasing and management policy is for use of land under its jurisdiction in
the best statewide public interest. This goal is implemented for the lands of concern at this symposium
through such programs as:

1. Protection of the public trust over the state's navigable waters, bays, sloughs, estuaries tand vital
marshlands;
2. Development through leasing of state resources with environmental protection legally established
through lease conditions;
3. Inspection and enforcement of State Lands Commission regulations on oil and gas operations on
state lands for safety and environmental protection;
4. Staff investigations involved with the removal and marking of waterways obstructions and hazards
5. Utilization of quality sand and gravel deposits for beach restoration;
6. Enforcement of critical safety requirements in the leases governing marine petroleum terminals;
7. Supervising and auditing legislative grants of tide and submerged lands to local governmental
agencies;
. A trespass abatement program to eliminate unauthorized uses and occupancy of state lands and
resources; and
9. Protection of the public easement and trust over the state's rivers and lakes including most
notably. a) Lake Tahoe; b) Donner Lake; c) the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Region; d) San
Francisco Bay Region; e) Colorado River.

Of serious concern to the people of this state as well as to the Commission is the assurance of envi-
ronmentally safe development of oil and gas resources underlying our lands. The Commission and its

119

staff enforce the toughest safety standards in the world for drilling and operation of oil and gas
extraction. There have been no significant oil spills on state lands leases in about 40 years of opera-
tions and approximately 1,800 wells drilled.

Comprehensive policies practiced by the Commission with regard to the administration and prudent
resource management of its land reflect the:

.-Enforcement of strict environmental controls over all operations on state-owned
lands..
...Establishment and perfection of titles to tide and submerged sovereign lands
owned by the state..
...Guarantee of and provision for public access to and across lands under the state's
jurisdiction...
...Determination and establishment of criteria for the optimum use of state lands
...Continuing involvement in energy and coastal-related matters, and more stringent
monitoring of lands granted by the legislature to local governmental agencies.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

The California Energy Commission is a regulatory agency, with authority to site power plants and set
conservation standards for building and appliances. It also forecasts energy needs and works on
developing new energy technologies.

The Commission is composed of five members appointed by the governor to five year terms. These
members represent the fields of engineeering and physical science, environmental protection, economics,
law, and the public at large. Every two years, the governor selects one of the members to chair the
Commission. The Commission employs an Executive Director and a staff of about 450 to carry out its
programs.

The Commission's regulatory and policy analysis responsibilities require continual assessment of current
energy supply and demand patterns, and forecasts of future energy needs. Every two years, the Commis-
sion requires California's electric utilities to submit 6, 12, and 20 year forecasts of electricity demand
and listing of the power plants needed to serve their customers. A common method for computing
future electricity needs, developed by the Commission and used statewide, has resulted in detailed
electricity demand and supply forecasts for utility service areas, and the state as a whole. The Com-
mission's forecasting program allows comparisons of energy demand and supply factors between utility
service areas, and from year to year. The Commission uses these forecasts as one basis for determining
the need for new electrical facilities. Forecasts are also used to plan energy conservation programs.

Energy conservation holds the highest priority in California energy planning policies. The Commission
has adopted statewide regulations which,

. Require buildings meet energy efficiency standards for design and constuction. Today we can
supply the energy needs of four houses with the same energy that used to be needed for three.
� Make appliances sold in California more efficient than those generally available in other parts of
the country.
. Require electronic starting devices to replace continually burning pilot lights. Previously, pilot
lights consumed 10 percent of all natural gas used in the state.

120

Other energy conservation measures are under continual review and a comprehensive state energy
conservation plan has been developed. The Commission has also adopted special measures to cope with
sudden energy shortages.

Before a thermal electric plant may be constructed in California, the builder must gain certification
from the Energy Commission. The facility siting certification process has two phases. The first
requires an applicant submit a "Notice of Intent," proposing three alternative sites and explaining the
gereration facilities. If the notice wins Commission approval, the applicant may file an "Application
for Certification" seeking final approval to build at one of the sites.

The Commission reviews these notices and applications extensively at public hearing. It may take no
longer than twelve months to make its decision on a Notice of Intent, and has up to 18 months to
make its decision on an Application for Certification. The need for a proposed power plant, safety,
utility system reliability, financial impacts, energy conservation effects, and feasible electrical generation
alternatives are scrutinized in the facility siting process.

To stimulate the use of alternative energy sources, the Commission may grant exemptions from the full
siting process for small, innovative power plant proposals which will generate less than 100 megawatts.
California law also provides special, expedited siting review for alternative generation sources like
geothermal.

California wants to develop and use renewable energy resources, and to promote environmentally sound
and economically efficient energy systems. The Commission sponsors studies and demonstrations to
bring solar, wind, geothermal and other promising resources into commercial use. It also conducts
assessments of the technologies for fossil, hydro and nuclear energy use in California so that Com-
mission policies and programs reflect the current state of the art.

CALIFORNIA SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION

The California Seismic Safety Commission was established by the Legislature in 1975 to advise the
Governor, Legislature, state and local governments on ways of reducing earthquake hazards

California has experienced more damaging earthquakes than any other state and is recognized for having
the potential for more. Recognizing that some actions relating to public safety are appropriate to State
government, the California Legislature created the Seismic Safety Commission for the purposes of
developing public policy recommendations and programs leading to improved earthquake safety. The
Commission is directing its attention to formulating goals and objectvies for seismic safety and devel-
oping programs and actions aimed at reducing the hazards that earthquakes pose to life, safety, and
economic loss for the people of the State.

Seventeen Commissioners, chosen for their expertise and experience, serve without compensation. Most
work is achieved through task committees of Commissioners with staff support. Public meetings are
held monthly in Sacramento or other areas of the state depending on local issues. The Commission
advises the Governor and the Legislature on earthquake safety and reports to them annually.

The Seismic Safety Commission has many responsibilities relating to hazard reduction:

-Advising the Governor and legislature on earthquake programs and needed legislation on seismic safety.

121

-Reviewing earthquake-related activities funded by the state and advising the Governor and the
Legislature.
-Setting goals and priorities for reducing the earthquake hazard in the public and private sectors.
-Providing consistent policy for earthquake-related programs for agencies at all government levels.
-Proposing needed legislation and reviewing other earthquake-related legislation.
-Conducting public hearings on earthquake safety issues.
-Helping coordinate the earthquake safety activities of government at all levels.
-Recommending program changes for earthquake safety to state and local agencies and the private sector.
-Requesting state agencies to devise criteria to promote earthquake safety.
-Recommending adding, deleting, or changing state standards when such actions promote earthquake
safety.
-Reviewing reconstruction efforts after damaging earthquakes.
-Gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information; encouraging research; sponsoring training.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency is a cabinet-level agency encompassing some 14
departments of state government.

This agency's most specific responsibility is to be represented by a non-voting position on the Cali-
fornia Coastal Commission. Three areas of interest have been predominant the agency's coastal or
marine involvement. First, transportation by road to and along the coast is a concern. Specific issues
are most often handled by the California Department of Transportation, as one of the agency's operat-
ing departments. Second, the relationship of housing to coastal resources is a concern. Similarly, the
Department of Housing and Community Development has operational responsibility for issues such as
local housing plans. Finally, the agency is generally charged with representing the interest of business
and economic development. This has meant that the agency will be involved in issues such as off-shore
oil development, shipping and ports and industrial development.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

OPR's primary role in marine resource management is to synthesize policy recommendations for the
Governor and to coordinate statewide activities to ensure compliance with the policies. The objective
is the development, coordination, and implementation of a unified marine resource management policy
for the state and adoption of such a policy by the Governor and his Cabinet and by local governments
where appropriate.

Working with other state agencies, local governments, and citizen groups, OPR develops the Governor's
recommendations on the Department of the Interior's 5-year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, individual
lease sales, and development and production plans under the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act.
OPR also participates in litigation related to OCS development and provides staff analysis and support
for oil and gas related legislation such as OCS revenue sharing proposals and measures to place a
moratorium on development in designated high risk areas.

122

OPR's responsibility is to ensure that state and Governor's Office policies are based on a statewide
perspective and that such policies incorporate the recommendations of all other state agencies with
marine resource responsibilities. OPR's role in coordinating policy development of oil and gas activ-
ities is not limited to the OCS; other offshore activities such as leasing of state submerged and tide
lands is also within OPR's role. OPR participates and staffs the state's Energy Coordinating Council,
represents the Governor on the National OCS Policy Advisory Board and Pacific Regional OCS Policy
Committee, and is a member of the Santa Barbara Petroleum Transportation Council.

OPR is directed by the California Permit Simplification Act (AB 884) to provide permit assistance
which extends to marine resource management activities. When assistance is requested by potential
permit applicants, OPR's role includes setting up preliminary meetings between applicants and regulatory
agencies, ensuring that time limits are met, mediating disputes between agencies, and coordinating joint
environmental documents. Permit assistance for offshore projects is especially important because of the
complex review process, the number of agencies involved, and the potential for significant environ-
mental damage. Serious environmental and economic losses could occur if state and local agencies,
along with private industry, are not working together to develop the best possible marine resource
plans.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NOAA/NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as a component of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration in the Commerce Department has an integrated program of research and services
related to the protection and rational use of living marine resources for their aesthetic, economic, and
recreational value. NMFS administers programs (1) to determine how the naturally varying environment
and man's activities affect those marine resources; (2) to provide knowledge and services to .foster their
efficient and judicious use; and (3) to achieve domestic and international management, use and protec-
tion of living marine resources. The overall mission of NMFS is to "Achieve a continued optimum
utilization of living marine resources for the benefit of the Nation."

The long-term goals of the NMFS designed to accomplish that mission are:

Goal A: CONSERVE AND MANAGE MARINE FISHERY RESOURCES FOR THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT
OF THE UNITED STATES

In working toward this Goal the Service works under the broad mandate of the Magnuson Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act, which extends the United States marine jurisdiction to 200 nautical
miles. In conjunction with the Regional Fisheries Management Councils nation-wide, NMFS works to
develop fisheries management plans within'that zone, for those species of highest commercial or
recreational importance. The aim is to achieve the optimum yield from the populations being
managed.
Once a plan is adopted, NMFS Law Enforcement Division agents coordinate with the appropriate coastal
states in monitoring and enforcing the regulatory regime outlined in that plan. In this manner the
regulated fisheries may be managed for their maximum long-term economic or recreational benefits.

123

Goal B: MAXIMIZE THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS FROM UNITED STATES FISHERY
RESOURCES BY CONTRIBUTING TO THE STABILITY AND GROWTH OF THE NATIONS FISHING
INDUSTRY.

The Service works in close concert with the fishing industry to foster its vitality, improve its produc-
tivity, and expand its economic base through its Fisheries Development; Financial Services; and Seafood
Quality Research, Inspection and Consumer Services Divisions. NMFS for example provides grants for
fisheries development projects, analyzes and disseminates information on export and domestic market
developments, manages fisheries loan guarantee and claims programs, and provides a voluntary seafood
inspection and certification service to major processors.

The overall aim is to encourage economic stability and a positive climate for growth and development,
so that the United States commercial and recreational fishing industries can reach their full potential
for utilizing the Nation's fishery resources.

Goal C: CONSERVE POPULATIONS OF MARINE MAMMALS AND ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT
ARE AFFECTED BY DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN ACTIVITES

The Service through its Office of Marine Mammals and Endangered Species conducts the research
necessary to determine the status of marine mammal and endangered species stocks throughout the
United States. Estimates of population levels and research are used to determine the impacts of taking
marine mammals and endangered species. The NMFS is responsible for identifying and addressing issues
and problems in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
the Endangered Species Act.

Issues and activities which must be addressed for their effect on marine mammals and endangered
species include incidental take during commercial fishing, offshore resource exploration and develop-
ment, habitat modification, private research, and public display requests. The goal of population
conservation can only be achieved in the long-term, through this interaction of research and manage-
ment in the decision making process.

Goal D: CONSERVE MARINE HABITATS AND ASSOCIATED ECOSYSTEMS NECESSARY TO
SUSTAIN LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

The Service, recognizing that without a national advocacy for habitat conservation, maintanence of
living marine resource stocks would not be feasible, addresses habitat considerations through its Office
of Habitat Protection. Under the Department of Commerce responsibilities in water resources planning
and development, the NMFS participates in environmental decision making by assessing the impacts of
environmental alterations on habitat that is important to the maintenance of living marine resources.
Operating under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, the Clean Water Act, and approximately fifteen other Acts, NMFS conducts research, analyzes and
makes recommendations on a wide variety of water developments, waste discharge, oil and gas activities,
and other projects and permits which could adversely affect marine recreational and commercial
fisheries.

The Office coordinates the habitat interests of NMFS with other state and federal agencies as well as its
private commercial and recreational fishing constituency. The Office, also ensures that habitat issues
are considered by all NMFS elements, so that the overall agency mission of continued optimum utili-
zation may be achieved.

124

NOAA/OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

In NOAA's reorganization, the new National Ocean Service (NOS) is one of five major functional
offices (eg., the National Weather Service; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research). Headed by an Assistant Administrator, the NOS is the focal point for NOAA's integrated
ocean services program through the activities of four major line organizations.

Within NOS the Office of Chartinm and Geodetic Services would be responsible for the surveys and
data analysis to produce navigational charts and related information. The Office of Oceanoaranhv and
Marine Services would conduct applied oceanographic research, including oceanic hard mineral and
thermal energy resource analyses and tidal and wave studies, and would provide scientific response and
damage assessment related to oil and hazardous spills. The Office of Marine ODerations would be
responsible for NOAA fleet operations and support. The Office of Ocean Resources Manaaement (ORM)
would basically be a merger of the functions of othe existing Office of Coastal Zone Management
(OCZM) and the Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy (OME).

Within ORM, four major line operations have been proposed. Ocean Minerals and Enerav (OME) would
be responsible for administering the deep seabed mining and ocean thermal energy conversion programs,
including processing license applications, and developing regulatory policies. The Sanctuarv Proaram
Office (SPO) would continue to administer financial awards to states for estuarine sanctuary develop-
ment, provide policy and program guidance to states regarding estuarine sanctuary designation and
management, identify and select sites for future designation as marine sanctuaries, and manage marine
sanctuaries. The Coastal Prourams Office (CPO) would continue to direct the state coastal zone
management (CZM) and coastal energy impact (CEIP) programs, and provide technical assistance to
coastal states and U.S. territories in implementing their coastal programs. The Policy Coordination
Office (PCO) would be responsible for policy analysis and guidance for all ORM programs, as well as
the evaluation of those programs, and for NOAA-wide policy coordination in the areas of marine
transportation, outer continental shelf oil and gas development, "Superfund" and the National Contin-
gency Plan, and coastal hazards.

The proposed reorganization has been approved by the Department of Commerce and, as of early
September, is being coordinated with the Congress. It is expected to be effective by late 1982. In the
interim, OCZM is proceeding to phase out Federal financial assistance for both CZM and CEIP over
the next two fiscal years. Final awards are now being made to assist states in making the adjustments
necessary to continue operation of their CZM programs. At the same time, Congress has under active
consideration proposals to provide a share of Federal OCS oil and gas revenues to states for CZM and
related programs. With or without revenue sharing, nearly all states with approved CZM programs are
intent on continued implementation of the underlying laws and regulations.

After the phaseout of financial assistance, the new ORM will expand its liaison services to state CZM
programs. Statutorily, ORM must evaluate programs to certify continued Federal approvability and
review the implementation of the consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act. In
addition, ORM will provide technical assistance and Federal agency liaison on coastal zone management
issues, such as Federal consistency, natural hazards management, wetlands permitting and permit simpli-
fication, port development, urban waterfront revitalization, special area management planning and access.

125

PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and seven other regional councils were created by the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 with the primary role of developing and
revising management plans for fisheries conducted within 3-200 miles off the U.S. coast. The PFMC
develops plans for ocean fisheries off Washington, Oregon and California.
The Council is not a federal agency, but is an instrument of the federal government funded through
the Department of Commerce. It has thirteen voting members, including the regional director of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, chief fishery officials of Oregon, Washington, California and Idaho
and eight knowledgeable private citizens chosen by the Secretary of Commerce from lists submitted by
each governor. Nonvoting council members include the director of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Com-
mission, regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, representatives of the Alaska governor's
office and U.S Department of State, and Pacific area commander of the U.S. Coast Guard. The
Council has a professional staff headquartered in Portland, Oregon, a Scientific and Statistical Com-
mittee to review fishery management plans, and several fishery management plan development teams and
citizen advisory panels

A fishery management plan contains, among other things, the conservation and management measures
necessary for foreign and domestic fisheries. All plans must meet seven major standards established by
the Act:

- Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing but achieve optimum yield from
each fishery,

- These measures shall be based on the best scientific information available;

- To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit through its
range;

- Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate among residents of different states;

- The measures shall, where practicable, promote efficiency in the use of fishery resources;

- They shall take into account and allow for variations among fisheries, fishery resources, and
catches;

- And where practicable, they shall minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.

Fishery management plans are prepared by the council's plan development teams consisting of scientists
with specific knowledge of the fishery in question. Advisory panels of knowledgeable citizens provide
each plan development team with advice and perspective. Draft plans are reviewed by advisors and the
scientific and statistical committee. Each plan is submitted to the public for review and comment.
Public hearings are held on each plan. The council reviews all public input, adopts a plan and
submits it to the Secretary of Commerce and the Coast Guard which are charged with enforcement of
the regulations.

The Council has developed plans for the ocean salmon, groundfish and anchovy fisheries.

126

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Regarding the Bureau of Land Management's role in marine resources management, its responsibilities,
and its legislative mandate: With exception of the offices involvement in the custodial management of
some one thousand acres of over a thousand reefs, islets, pinnacles, and small islands off the coast, the
Bureau is not involved in marine resources management. Its role centers around the management of
over 16.5 million acres of public land in California. These are managed for a myriad of uses including
recreation, wilderness, wildlife, watershed, grazing, minerals and timber. The basic charter for managing
these lands is found in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Its passage in 1976 established
the national policy that the public lands were to be retained in Federal ownership and managed for
multiple-use and sustained yield. The Act repealed some 300 archaic land laws and formalized in law
the completion of BLM's evolution from land agent to full multiple-we manager of the public lands.

The Burteau does have management responsibility for some 240 miles of salmon and steelhead spawning,
nursery and. resting habitat. Its role to date has been mostly custodial with the exception of involve-
ment in salmon and steelhead habitat improvement over the past three years This work has been
centered in the King Range National Conservation Area (Mendocino County) and the Trinity River Basin
(Shasta County). The Bureau has also maintained a custodial role with respect to the reefs, islets,
pinnacles and small islands of the California coast. Primary responsibilities for managing these areas
has been with the California Department of Fish and Game under a 1978 Cooperative Agreement.

BUREAU OF MINES

The Western Field Operations Center (WFOC) of the U.S. Bureau of Mines is not involved with the
management of ocean mineral resources, nor does it have any regulatory, leasing or administrative
responsibilities.

Its concern with ocean mineral deposits is of a scientific nature-the Western Field Operation Center
has been involved in evaluation of deep-ocean polymetallic nodule deposits since 1975. Among other
reports, WFOC has recently completed a draft report entitled "Manganese Nodule Resources of Three
Areas in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: With Proposed Mining-Beneficiation Systems and Costs." WFOC
is currently evaluating several phosphorite deposits off-shore from Southern California, and has
proposed to do some preliminary evaluations of sand and gravel deposits off-shore from Los Angeles,
California; Oahu and Molokai, Hawaii; and the south Washington coast. Other proposed work consists
of mineral data collection and analysis relating to submarine massive sulfides and manganese nodule
deposits. WFOC is also concerned with outer continental shdelf (OCS) hatd-rock mineral deposits; most
specifically, data collection and analysis of strategic and critical mineral commodities such as chromite,
tin, gold, platinum, and titanium.

127

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibilities in the coastal and marine environment arising from
laws, treaties, Executive Orders, and related interdepartmental agreements Some of these are the fish
and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Memorandum of Agreement between
the Secretary of the Interior and the Department of the Army, July 2, 1982, the National Environmental
Policy Act (P.L 91-90), and the Endangered Species Act to name just a few.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Act of March 10, 1934, 48 Stat. 4017 as amended, 16 U.SC.
661-66) states among other things:

"Whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized
to be impounded, diverted, the channel deoened. or the stream or other body of water
otherwise controlled or modified for any nurnose whatever. includinu navigation and
drainaae. by any dewartment or aencv of the United States. or bv anv nublic or orivate
aaencv of the United States. or b anyv nublic or nrivate aaencv under Federal nermit or
license. such deoartment or aaencv first shall consult with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service. Denartment of the Interior. and with the head of the agency exercising
administration over the wildlife resources of the particular State wherein the impound-
ment, diversion, or other control facility is to be constructed, with a view to the con-
servation of wildlife resources bv nreventiny loss of damage to such resources as well as
orov'dinv for the development and improvement thereof in connection with such water-
resource develooment" (Emphasis added)

When this is read in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Declaration of Policy, which
in essence states

The Congress hereby declares that the fish, shell fish, and wildlife resources of the
Nation make a material contribution to out national economy and food supply, as well
as a material contribution to the health, recreation, and well-being of our citizens such
that resources are a living, renewable form of national wealth that is capable of being
maintained and greatly increased with proper management, but equally capable of
destruction if neglected or unwisely exploited; that such resource afford outdoor recrea-
tion throughout the Nation and provide employment, dirtctly or indirectly, to a sub-
stantial number of citizent and that properly developed, such fish and wildlife resources
are capable of steadily increasing these valuable contribuitions to the life of the Nation.

Wildlife must be understood in its broadest sense; that is, all mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks
and crustaceans) and other classes of wild animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon
which they are dependent.

The Endangered Species Act (16 U.SC. #1531-1543) and specifically Section 7 is critical to all Federal
agencies and their respective actions. Section 7 of the Act reads:

The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs
in furtherance of the purposes of this' chapter. All other federal departments and
agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter by carrying out programs for
the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section
1533 of this title and by taking such action necessary to insure that actions authorized,
funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of such
endangered species and threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of

128

habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as
appropriate with the affected States, to be critical.

The literal meaning of this section is quite clear. All Federal agencies and departments shall insure
that activities authorized, funded or carried out by them do not jeopardize listed species and/or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat designated by the Secretary of the Interior as
Critical Habitat for endangered species. Anything short of such a guarantee fails to satisfy an agency's
responsibilities under Section 7.

The Service had consistently maintained that numerous activities and their resultant habitat modi-
fications can conceivably take place within critical habitat without conflicting with Section 7. A
consistent reading of the Section is that habitat modifications per se are not prohibited, but only those
modificaitons which diminish the value of the habitat for a listed species. Manipulation of habitat to
the clear benefit of a listed species is permissable. A Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Servie is required before a permit is issued for an activitiy that may affect a threatened or endangered
species.

The National Environmental Policy Act is the Nation's basic national charter for protection of the
environment. This Act declares an national policy that encourages productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of
the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation;

Section 102(c) of the Act indicates that all agencies of the Federal government shall

"Include in every recommendation or report on proposals of legislation and other major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed
statement by the responsible official on--

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the main-
tenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved
in the proposed action should it be implemented."

Each one of these items is important and must be carefully considered for any project. Of importance
are the cumulative effects of various projects.

Each action or project, while a small matter in itself, and with seemingly minor impact, can collectively
over a period of years have a major impact on limited resources.

The overall objective of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to preserve and protect resources, habitat and
public trust rights in and associated with the Nation's waters by minimizing development or use impacts
and degradations; helping to restore or improve habitat and associated resources and providing oppor-
tunities for public use and enjoyment through proper development and management.

The Service responds to activities being proposed by specific project legislation, and to permit appli-
cations under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 402 and 404 of the Clean Water
Act and Section 103 of the Ocean Dumping Act.

129

In the overall effort to manage the Nation's fish, wildlife and aquatic resouces, the Fish and Wildlife
Service exercises and encourages all efforts to preserve, restore, and improve the fish, wildlife, and
naturally functioning aquatic and wetland ecosystems and their adjacent lands.

a. The Service reviews, investigates, and cooperates by providing ecological advice on the formu-
lation of Federal and federally permitted and assisted plans for development of the Nation's
waters and adjacent lands.
b. The Service prepares reports, comments and recommendations on proposals for Federal and
federally permitted or assisted developments which encroach upon the Nation's waters.

c. The Service provides technical guidance and assistance to government agencies and concerned
citizens on the environmental aspects of managing waters, wetlands and associated resources. The
development and adoption of comprehensive regional and statewide plans for the management of
such waters and wetlands is encouraged.
d. The Service encourages and provides technical guidance and assistance to local and state programs
and conducts training sessions (wetland identification and coastal ecosystem profiles designed to
further public education and awareness of environmental values and threats to the Nation's waters,
wetlands and associated resources).

e. The Service encourages early consultation of any activity which could impact threatened or
endangered species or their habitat or any activities which could adversely impact the renew-
ability of the Nation's waters and associated resources.

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

After establishing the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in January, 1982, focusing on mineral royalty
management onshore, the Secretary of the Interior expanded MMS by incorporating all leasing and
resource management functions for the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) program.

The OCS program, as stated by the Department and viewed in the context of National Energy Policy, is
to encourage and permit discovery, identification, and to inventory those mineral resources that lie
beneath the ocean within Federal jurisdiction, and to allow for their timely and efficient development
while simultaneously protecting the environment.

The offshore function of MMS, with four regional offices, uses the Department's five-year OCS Oil and
Gas Leasing Schedule as its basic planning tool which provides for consideration of leasing (4 lease
sales offshore California) in all OCS Planning Areas with oil and gas potential.

The Pacific OCS Regional Office, in support of the five-year Schedule, is responsible for the leasing
and supervision of industry operations on submerged lands on the Federal OCS for exploration,
development, and transportation of all mineral resources offshore California, Oregon, Washington, and
Hawaii Specifically, the Office implements the MMS Environmental Studies Program, prepares envi-
ronmental analyses (Appraisals and Impact Statements) with public input and participation, issues
permits for pipeline right-of-way, and conducts Lease Sales.

Presently the regional office is comprised of personnel and associated functions from the previous
Conservation Division, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Land Management's Pacific OCS
Office. A draft organizational structure for the new regional office is before the Director of MMS with
approval and/or modification expected in the near future.

130

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. COAST GUARD 11TH DISTRICT

The United States Coast Guard as a Federal agency has many varied responsibilities and objectives
which fit into the realm of marine resource management. The majority of these responsibilities can be
separated into the general categories of commercial and recreational vessel safety, environmental protec-
tion and response, waterways management and the enforcement of laws and treaties. Many of the Coast
Guard's individual roles in marine resource management fit into more than one of these general
categories concurrently.

The Coast Guard's responsibilities in recreational and commercial vessel safety relate to the prevention
of the loss of life and property at sea. The Recreational Boating Safety Program performs three primary
functions: enforcement of construction and performance standards, education of the boating public and
the enforcement of boating safety laws. This program was mandated by a series of Federal Boating
Safety Acts. The commercial Vessel Safety Program dates from the early 1800's when the introduction
of steam propulsion on vessels was accompanied by catastrophic accidents Its modern functions
include: review and approval of plans for vessel construction and alteration, inspection of vessels and
offshore facilities, the licensing and certification of merchant marine personnel, and the investigation of
marine casualties and matters involving merchant marine personnel.

The environmental protection and response roles are relatively new functions in the overall history of
the Coast Guard. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, and the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (1980) are two of the key laws govern-
ing marine environmental protection. This program encompasses the prevention and detection of
discharges of oil and other hazardous substances into the environment. The Coast Guard along with
the Environmental Protection Agency assures that when such spills do occur, they are cleaned up
wherever possible and proper penalties are assessed.

The objectives of the Waterways Management Program are to safeguard persons, vessels and the marine
environment in the nation's ports, waterways and offshore approaches by utilizing a broad range of
vessel traffic management techniques. The foundation of this program is the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act of 1972 as amended. Some of the techniques available to accomplish the objectives of this program
are the establishment of vessel traffic services, traffic separation schemes and safety fairways and the
promulgation of specific regulations regarding vessel equipment and operations. This program works
closely with the aids to navigation function which is responsible for the establishment and maintenance
of over 46P,00 short range aids to navigation and the issuance of various Notice to Mariners.

Probably the most complex of the Coast Guard's responsibilities in marine resource management is that
of the enforcement of laws and treaties. For nearly 200 years the Coast Guard has been the principal
Federal agency for maritime law enforcement upon U.S. waters and on the high seas. Throughout the
Coast Guard's history this program has shifted emphasis in response to changing national demands. The
current areas of emphasis include maritime drug interdiction and the enforcement of fisheries conser-
vation regulations. Under the Fisheries Conservation Management Act the Coast Guard, along with
NOAA, has the responsibility for enforcing domestic and foreign fisheries regulations for the purpose
of conservation and management. In this program, more than in any of the other marine resource
management programs, the Coast Guard works with and relies upon many other Federal and state
agencies to accomplish its objectives.

These four programs represent the balance of the Coast Guard's- responsibilities in terms of marine
resource management but nearly all of its programs could have been included to a certain degree.
Marine resource management has always been and will continue to be one of the key areas of Coast
Guard concern.

131

U.S. COAST GUARD 12TH DISTRICT

The history of the Coast Guard goes back nearly two centuries to the beginning of the United States
when, in 1789, the first Congress passed an act calling for the collection of customs duties on imports
and tonnage. To enforce these new customs regulations, Congress approved an act the following year
that created the Revenue Marine, later renamed the Revenue Cutter Service, and forerunner of the
modern day Coast Guard. Since its creation, the Revenue Marine was called upon to enforce additional
regulations, including the enforcement of immigration laws (1862), and protection of the fisheries (1885).
Between 1920 and 1934, the Coast Guard faced a major law enforcement challenge in enforcing Prohi-
bition laws forbidding illegal liquor traffic. These early law enforcement duties established much of
the broad law enforcement authority that the Coast Guard currently possesses.

The duty that is most commonly associated with the Coast Guard -- saving those in peril at sea -- is
also deeply rooted in the Nation's history. As early as 1799 Revenue Cutters were dispatched to render
assistance to vessels in distress, and in 1831 the first winter cruises were ordered to routinely provide
aid during gale season. In 1848 Congress laid the foundation for the U.S Lifesaving Service, when it
authorized funds for the establishment of the first shoreside rescue stations along the coast. Over the
ensuing years, a system of lifesaving stations was created which included the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf
Coasts and the Great Lakes.

In 1915, Congress merged the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving Service to create the Coast
Guard, combining two of the Service's most important mission areas -- law enforcement and search and
rescue -- and establishing the multi-mission operations that are integral to today's Coast Guard.

In every war since its creation the Coast Guard and its Predecessor agencies have served with distinc-
tion. As early as 1797 during the Quasi-War with France, when no standing Navy existed, Congress
authorized the President to use Revenue Cutters for naval defense. In 1799, Congress allowed for
Revenue Cutters to become part of the Navy in time of war, an arrangement that continues with today's
Coast Guard. Revenue Cutters subsequently served in the War of 1812, the Civil War, and Spanish-
American War.

In both World Wats the Coast Guard was transferred from the Treasury Department to the Navy.
During World War I Coast Guard cutters played a major role in convoy escort. In World War II, the
Coast Guard expanded from 17,000 personnel at the outbreak, to a peak of over 175,000 in order to
carry out a wide range of world-wide naval missions, including antisubmarine warfare, amphibious
operations, port security, ocean stations, as well as traditional peacetime activities. During the Korean
Conflict the Coast Guard again mobilized to provide assistance to the Navy.

During the Vietnam war the Coast Guard provided a squadron of five large cutters and 27 patrol boats
to support Navy efforts to interdict gun smuggling and to provide naval gunfire support. Coast Guard
units also provided aids-to-navigation and LORAN-C services, and supervised explosive loadings on
merchant vessels within the combat zone.

Prior to World War II the Coast Guard acquired two of its major peacetime duties. In 1939, Congress
transferred the U.S. Lighthouse Service from the Commerce Department to the Coast Guard. Since
then, the Coast Guard has managed the Nation's system of maritime navigaiton aids. Also in 1939, the
Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation was transferred to the Coast Guard, making the Coast
Guard responsible for the inspection of U.S. merchant vessels to insure seaworthiness, licensing and
certification of U.S. merchant marine personnel, and investigation of major maritime casualties.

In recent years, the Coast Guard has continued to experience changes in missions, mostly in the form of
new responsibilities authorized by the Congress. Passage of the Bartlett Act of 1964 expanded enforce-
ment of U.S. fisheries laws within the 12-mile limit. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Manage-

132

ment Act of 1976 expanded fisheries enforcement further by creating the 200-mile fishing zone and
giving the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Coast Guard broad enforcement over both foreign
and domestic fishermen.

Since 1962, Coast Guard search and rescue activities have doubled due primarily to a steadily increasing
recreational boating population. During the 1970's an increase in illegal drug smuggling by sea led to
additional interdiction efforts by the Coast Guard. In 1973 the Coast Guard seized six marijuana-laden
vessels; in 1981 it seized 164 vessels. Recent increases in illegal alien immigration by sea have also
resulted in additional Coast Guard activity to enforce the immigration laws.

During the last decade, increasing public concern for the protection of the environment has prompted
legislation increasing Coast Guard activities in port and environment safety, commercial vessel safety,
and marine environmental response. Some of the more notable mandates are: the Water Quality
Improvement Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972,
Deepwater Port Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978

During this same period the Coast Guard was able to reduce operations in other mission areas.
Technological improvements allowed for the Coast Guard to discontinue the Ocean Station program in
the early 1970's, reduce the number of its buoy tenders from 125 in 1969 to 87 in 1981, eliminate all but
one lightship station, and phase out the entire LORAN-A radionavigation chain.

The net result of these changes in Coast Guard missions during the last decade has been an increase in
regulatory duties. Historically, the Coast Guard had been primarily a seagoing agency, relying on ships,
boats and aircraft to carry out operational maritime missions such as search and rescue and law en-
forcement on the high seas. This operational priority continues, but additional regulatory responsi-
bilities have caused shift of personnel to regulatory duties such as commercial vessel safety and marine
environmental protection. A result of this shift of emphasis has been a decrease in the number of
Coast Guard cutters from 339 in 1969, to 248 in 1981, and aircraft from 174 to 154.

At the end of Fiscal Year 1981 the Coast Guard consisted of approximately 39,000 military and 5484
civilian personnel. A major element of the Coast Guard is the Reserve Training Program providing an
additional resource of over 22,000 personnel, nearly 12,000 of whom are in the Selected Reserve.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a component of the Public Health Service within the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration
reports to the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Assistant Secretary for Health.

FDA is a scientific regulatory agency dedicated to assuring public health and safety. Its mandate is
consumer protection. FDA's mission is based on the premise the consumer cannot adequately assess the
safety and effectiveness of foods, drugs, and other products because of the complex nature of manu-
facturing and distribution qystems in this country.

The agency's goals are to ensure that food is safe and wholesome; drugs, biological products, and
medical devices are safe and effective; cosmetics are safe; use of radiological products does not result in
unnecessary exposure to radiation and all of these products are accurately labeled.

133

FDA's line organizations are the product-oriented bureaus for food, drugs, biologics, veterinary medi-
cine, radiological health, and medical devices, the field organization coordinated by the Executive
Director for Regional Operations (EDRO), and the highly specialized National Center for Toxicological
Research (NCTR).

Through the Bureau of Foods the agency is involved in regulating the food industry to assure they are
in compliance with federal laws and in the simplest of terms, that food is safe, wholesome, produced
under sanitary conditions, and the products are honestly and informatively labeled. FDA's responsi-
bility for foods covers essentially all food shipped or received in interstate commerce except meat and
poultry products, which are regulated by the U.S Department of Agricuture (USDA). The seafood
industry falls under FDA's authority. Although FDA has no direct control over marine resource
management, it has a vital interest in pollution effects on food resources such as fish and shellfish, due
to the potential public health problems which can result from the consumption of contaminated
seafood.

The primary hazard to the consumer from shellfish relates to the quality of the waters in their growing
areas. Shellfish pump and filter vast quantities of water through their bodies as an essential part of
their life process, and will accumulate and concentrate micro-organisms, chemicals (pesticides), and
heavy metals such as mercury from their marine environment. If they are exposed to water polluted
with human and animal wastes, they may become agents of diseases such as cholera, typhoid, hepatitis,
and other gastronenteric diseases.

Since people frequently eat raw or partially cooked shellfish, a health hazard may be present if shell-
fish are havested from contaminated waters. Even in cases where shellfish are fully cooked the presence
of chemicals or naturally occuring marine biotoxins associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP)
may result in shellfish poisonings.

FDA specifically assists the states with their programs for shellfish safety by participation in the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), a voluntary tripartite organization consisting of the
participating state regulatory agencies, the shellfish industry, and FDA. The agency develops, supports,
and evaluates the effectiveness of standardized state and foreign shellfish sanitation control programs.
FDA also has many other program responsibilities including development of new standards, research,
providing technical assistance, and training for federal and state shellfish personnel.

Local and state agencies approve shellfish growing areas and handling plants in accordance with NSSP
guidelines. Shellfish shippers awarded operating certificates by a state receive an identifying "certified"
number which must be placed on every container of fresh or frozen oysters, clams, or mussels.

State agencies dassify growing areas as to their safety for shellfish harvesting and have the power to
close these areas if pollution, paralytic shellfish poisoning or other health hazards occur. They may
also embargo and destroy any polluted, hazardous, or uncertified shellfish.

FDA is concerned that the seafood industry has a wholesome product for sale to the consuming public,
and its authority for enforcing this derives from the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the
Public Health Service Act's Interstate Quarantine Regulations. Through routine and special sampling
programs FDA monitors the potentially hazardous materials that may be present in these foods due to
pollution of their environment or concentration of hazardous materials through the food chain. Since
most of the hazardous materials are a result of a man's impact on the environment FDA must be
concerned with pollution control and the effects of pollution on food sources.

134

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

During the Coastal Commission's first ten years, the major planning issues in California focused on
land-based coastal resources. HUD maintained an interest in these issues although not a direct in-
volvement. The basic responsibility for land use decisions, relating to the use of HUD program
resources, rests with local government. Now that Local Coastal Plans are nearing completion, the focus
has shifted to issues involving marine resource management. HUD program activities usually have no
bearing on such issues.

The above is not meant to suggest that HUD feels no responsibility in coastal zone matters. As a
Federal agency, it must comply with the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act. In it Hous-
ing Programs this responsibility is met by assuring that project proposals comply with the state's coastal
zone management programs. HUD has rarely experienced difficulty in meeting this responsibility
because housing projects are normally designed to comply with the requirements of the Local Coastal
Plan--before they are submitted to the Department. In the case of the Community Development
Block Grant Program, responsibility for compliance with the Act has been delegated to the grantee.
Under the State-Administered Small Cities Program, grantees will retain responsibility for compliance.

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

The Federal Maritime Commission regulates the waterborne foreign and domestic offshore commerce of
the United States, assures that United States international trade is open to all nations on fair and
equitable terms, and protects against unauthorized, concerted activity in the waterborne commerce of
the United States. This is accomplished through maintaining surveillance over steamship conferences
and common carriers by water; assuring that only the rates on file with the Commission are charged;
approving agreements between persons subject to the Shipping Act, 1916; guaranteeing equal treatment
to shippers, carriers, and other persons subject to the shipping statutes; and ensuring that adequate
levels of financial responsibility are maintained for indemnification of passengers and dean-up of oil
and hazardous substances spills.

The Commission administers the vessel certification provisions of section 311 (p)(1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 1566), section 204(c) of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (87 Stat. 584), and section 305 (a)(1) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 (92 Stat. 670) with respect to evidence of financial responsibility
required from operators of vessels which may be subjected to liability for damages and removal of oil
and hazardous substances discharged into United States waters.

In clarification of responsibilities for Water Pollution, although the Commission is charged with issuing
upon application Certificates of Financial Responsibiltiy to vessel operators under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act, the enforcement responsibility for these three is lodged with the US Coast Guard and US
Customs Bureau Commission issued rules on these three acts may be found at 46USC 542, 543, and 544.

The Commission also oversees lease arrangements of existing facilities and to some degree operations of
port and terminal operators whose facilities are used by ocean-going common carriers.

135

Appendix F

MEMBERS OF CORE GROUP

Mr. Joseph R. Blum Mr. E. C. Fullerton
Assistant Regional Director for Director
Habitat Preservation Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1416 Ninth Street
500 NE. Multnomah Street, Suite 1692 Sacramento,CA 95814
Portland, OR 97732
Mr. Zeke Grader
Dr. Fred S. Conte General Manager
Aquaculture Extension Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
554 Hutchison Hall Associations, Inc.
University of California 3000 Bridgeway Building, Suite 104
Davis, CA 95616 Sausalito, CA 94966

Ms. Martha Davis Mr. Frank Guy
Wildlife Campaign Coordinator Senior Specialist, Marine
Greenpeace Environmental Affairs
Fort Mason Center, Building E Union Oil Company
San Francisco, CA 94123 911 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Ms. Claire Dedrick
Executive Director Ms. Susan Hansch
State Lands Commission California Coastal Commission
1807 13th Street 631 Howard Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94105

Mr. R. Gregory DeGiere Mr. Richard J. Harris
Consultant, Joint Committee Offshore District Land Supervisor
on Fisheries and Aquaculture Chevron, USA
California State Legislature 2120 Diamond Boulevard
2540 11th Avenue Concord, CA 94524
Sacramento, CA 95818
Dr. Michael J. Herz
William Doyle, Director Executive Vice President
Center for Coastal Marine Studies The Oceanic Society
University of California 240 Fort Mason Center, Building E
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 San Francisco, CA 94123

Mr. Carl Enson Mr. William M. Kier
Chief, Planning Division Environmental Policy Specialist
Chief, Planning Division Senate Office of Research
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Senate Office of Reseach
P.O. Box 2711 1
P.O. Box 2711 1100 J Street, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90053 Sacramento,CA 95814

Mr. Timothy C. Farley Mr. Lance Kiley
Chief of Planning Chief, Land, Management
Department of Fish and Conservation Division
1416 Ninth Street State Lands Commission
Sacramento, CA 95814 1807 13th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mr. Michael L Fischer
Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

139

Mr. Robert W. Knecht Mr. Reid T. Stone
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Manager, Pacific Region
Woods Hole, MA 02543 Minerals Management Service
1340 West 6th Street, Suite 160
Admiral A. P. Manning Los Angeles, CA 90017
Commander, 11th District
U.S. Coast Guard Dr. James Sullivan
400 Oceangate Blvd. Sea Grant College Program Manager
Long Beach, CA 90822 Institute of Marine Resources, A-032
University of California
Mr. William Matuszeski La Jolla, CA 92093
Assistant Administrator
Office of Coastal Zone Management Dr. Frank Talbot
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW Director
Washington, DC 20235 California Academy of Science
Golden Gate Park
Mr. Scott McCreary San Francisco, CA 94118
California Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 Ms. Stephanie Thornton
Oakland, CA 94612 Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association
216 H Street
Mr. Al Petrovich Eureka, CA 95501
Chief of Marine Resources
Department of Fish and Game Dr. Don Walsh
1416 Ninth Street Director, Institute for Marine
Sacramento, CA 95814 and Coastal Studies
University of Southern California
Dr. James Rote Los Angeles, CA 90007
Assembly Office of Research
California State Legislature Mt. William J. Whalen
1100 J Street, Room 535 Executive Director
Sacramento, CA 95814 SPUR
312 Sutter Street
Dr. Fred N. Spiess San Francisco, CA 94108
Dierctor, Institute for Marine
Resources Mr. John Zierold
University of California The Sierra Club
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 1228 N Street, Suite 31
Sacramento, CA 95814

140

Appendix G

LIST OF POLICY PAPERS

i ii~i'
,:A

Seventy-five policy papers were prepared fon " 'iOnat the'Ocean Studies Symposium. Abstracts
of the papers were distributed to the participants. Since Symposium presentations were limited to five
minutes, authors of the papers covered only the highlights of their subjects. The full text of the policy
papers are contained in the second volume of this report, OCEAN STUDIES SYMPOSIUM/POLICY
PAPERS.

OCEAN STUDIES SYMPOSIUM/POLICY PAPERS may be ordered from the California Coastal Com-
mission at the cost of $25.00, including taxes and postage. An order form is induded for convenience
at the end of this section. Please allow six to eight weeks for delivery.

A list of the policy papers follows

LAW OF THE SEA/NATIONAL ROLE IN OCEAN MANAGEMENT

Are There Workable Princinles for Managing the Resources of the Deen Seabed?. Ronald S. Katz,
Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett, Palo Alto, CA

Allocation of Federal and State Authoritv for the Manauement of Livine Marine Resources. Eldon V. C.
Greenberg, Galloway and Greenberg, Washington, DC

State Versus National Interests in an Exnanded Territorial Sea. Robert W. Knecht and William E.
Westermeyer, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA

Oooortunities for a State-Federal Partnershin in an Exoanded Territorial Sea. Michael E. Shapiro,
Califronia Energy Commission, and Rosella W. Shapiro, Governor's Office of Planning and Research,
Sacramento, CA

Reflections on the Failure of NOAA's Ocean Management Office. by Samuel A. Bleicher, Blank, Rome,
Comiksy and McCauley, Washington, DC

AQUACULTURE

The Value and Pronosed Management of Seaweed Resources in California. Dr. Judith E. Hansen, Marine
Bioassay Laboratory, Watsonville, CA

Coastal Aouaculture! Management Issues. Gerald D. Bowden, Atchison & Anderson, Santa Cruz, CA, for
the West Coast Aquaculture Foundation, Monterey, CA

Aauaculture in Humboldt Bav: Past. Present and Future. Dr. William N. Shaw, Telonicher Marine
Laboratory, Humboldt State University, Humboldt, CA, and Ronald W. Warner, California Department
of Fish and Game, Eureka, CA

Keln Harvesting and State Oruanizational Structures for the Management of Living Marine Resources.
Don E. Conner and Ronald H. McPeak, Kelco Division of Merck and Company, San Diego, CA

Aauaculture and Coastal Zone Planning. Dr. Fred S. Conte and A. T. Manus, University of California,
Davis, CA

143

Prosnects for the California Abalone Resource: Recent Develonment of New Technologies for Aaua-
culture and Cost-Effective Seeding for Restoration and Enhancement of Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries. Dr. Daniel E. Morse, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

Advent of Onen Ocean Ranchine of Abalone on a Basis Benefittina the State of California. Commercial
Fisheries. Recreational Fisheries and Private Enterorise. Lad Handelman, California Sea Farms, Inc.,
Santa Barbara, CA

COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHERIES

California Policy and Manarement for Natural Pacific Salmon Production. Dr. David G. Hankin,
Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA

Ponulaton Genetics. Salmon Production and Manaaement of the Fisherv. Dr. Graham A. E. Gall and
Paul G. Olin, University of California, Davis, CA

Fishermen: Chamoions for Priceless Resources. Stephanie R. Thornton, Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing
Association, Eureka, CA

Imminent Technological Develooments in Satellite Remote Sensina and Hvdroacoustic Fish Assessment
and Their Effect on Fishermen and Fisheries Manaaement Agencies. Robert R. Abbott, Tiburon Center
for Environmental Studies and Paul Sund, National Marine Fisheries Service, Tiburon, CA

Toward Sharing the Coastal Seas: Commercial Fishing and Marine Geonhvsical Survevs. Thomas L.
Wright, Chevron, USA, Concord, CA

Is There a Role for the Coastal Commission in the Management of Northern California's Commercial
Fisheries?, Dan Ray and Bruce Fodge, California Coastal Commission, and Christopher Toole, Marine
Advisory Extension Service, Eureka, CA

The Role of the Calfornia Coonerative Oceanic Fisheries Investieations in Fisheries Research and
Management, Dr. Rueben Lasker, CalCOFI Coordinator, University of California, La Jolla, CA

MARINE MAMMALS

The Perils of Success: Imolications of Increasing Marine Mammal Ponulations in the Southern
California Blight. Dr. Charles F. Cooper, San Diego State University, and Brent S. Steward, Hubbs/Sea
World Research Institute, San Diego, CA

The Southern Sea Otter Manninr Proiect: Imolications for the Management of California's Nearshore
Resources. James A. Dobbin and Michele H. Lemay, Dobbin Associates, Washington, DC

Dynamic Resoonse Estimation of Ponulation Status Relative to Maximum Net Productivitv Level. Dr.
Daniel Goodman, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA

Relationshins of Sea Otters to Living Marine Resources in California: A New Persoective. Dr. Glenn R.
VanBlaricom, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Simeon, CA

144

An Inventory of Marine Mammals and Seabirds Alonm the California Coastline. Dr. Thomas P. Dohl,
University of California, Santa Cruz, CA

The Potential for a West Coast Strandinr Network for Marine Mammals. Dr. Leslie A. Dierauf and Marc
A. Webber, California Marine Mammal Center, Sausalito, CA

Biolouical and Mananement Considerations for Cetaceans in Coastal Waters of California. Ronn Storro-
Patterson, The Whale Center, Oakland, CA

MARINE SANCTUARIES, UNDERWATER PARKS AND REFUGES

The State Denartment of Parks and Recreation: Its Role in the Marine Environment. Charles Mehlert,
Department of Parks and Recreation, Monterey, CA

The Role of Parks and Sanctuaries in Multinle Use Management of Coastal Resources. Gary Davis and
Carol Pillsbury, Channel Islands National Park and Marine Sanctuary, Ventura, CA

Establishment of Marine Sanctuaries. Maxine McCloskey, The Whale Center, Oakland, CA

Marine Recreational Conflicts in the Nearshore Marine Environment. Neils West, University of Rhode
Island, Kingston, RI

OFF'SHORE ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES,

Soil Machine Interaction Studies for Manmenese Nodule Mininm. Dr. Iraj Noorany, San Diego State
University, and John Fuller, Western Nuclear, Inc., Lakewood, CO

Petroleum in California's Oceans. Dr. Dale Straughan, Dale Straughan International, Paramount, CA

OCS Well Information Related to Resource Estimation. Geologic Hazards. Evaluation. Environmental
Risks and Future Exoloration Oonortunities in Frontier Basins Offshore California. D. L Ziegler,
Chevron, USA, Concord, CA

Subsea Production Systems and Completions. J. B. Hundley, ARCO Oil and Gas Company, Bakersfield,
CA

Salient Features in Develoning Mananement Stratevy to Assess the Effects of Offshore Drillinm Fluids
and Cuttings, Dr. Don Maurer, Southern California Ocean Studies Consortium, Long Beach, CA

Santa Barbara Channel Natural Oil and Gas Seen Containment Proiect. Dr. Robert A. P. Gaal, State
Lands Commission, Long Beach, CA

Offshore Oil Soill Eauinment Evolution in Southern California: A Federal Persnective. Commander
LA. Onstad, U.S. Coast Guard, Long Beach, CA

Dam-Atoll for Concentration and Conversion of Ocean Wave Enerev. Thomas P. Higgins and Clinton P.
Sherburne, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Sunnyvale, CA

145

The Future of Ocean Minina Industry in the State of California! Management and Plannina Decisions.
Kurt M. Shusterich, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA

Management Alternatives for Disoosal of Marine Mineral Processing Wastes Along the California Coast.
Patrick A. Kennedy, Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Philadelphia, PA

Ecological Research for Offshore Oil Extraction. Dr. Robert B. Spies, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, CA

MARINE POLLUTION

How Much Protection Does the Marine Environment Need and Deserve?. Kenneth S. Kamlet, National
Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC

Deciding on a Proner Ocean Distosal Policy. Willard Bascom, Coastal Water Research Project, Long
Beach, CA

The Ocean Disnosal of Radioactive Waste: International Law and California. David D. Caron, Uni-
versity of California Law Student, Berkeley, CA

Multi-media Sewaae Sludge Management: The Role of the Ocean in California. Douglas A. Segar and
Elaine Stamman, SEAOcean, Inc, Wheaton, MD

Assessing the Imoact of Toxic Waste Disoosal in California Coastal Zone. Dr. Michael Martin and Mark
D. Stephenson, Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA

Marine Pollution Protection is the Answer But What are the Ouestions?. Dr. David W. Fischer, Uni-
versity of West Florida, Pensocola, FL

Crustaceans as Biomonitors. Variation in Eag Production Amona San Crabs Livinr Near a Power Plant.
Adrian M. Wenner and Paul Siegle, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

Marine Transoortation and Coastal Policy. Peter A. Johnson, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.
Congress, Washington, DC

Offshore Oil versus Vessel Navigation: Resolvine the Conflict. Lt. Commander Jan E. TerVeen, U.S.
Coast Guard, Long Beach, CA

The Benefits and Costs of a Vessel Traffic Control System for the Santa Barbara Channel. Arent H.
Schuyler, Jr., University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

146

SHORELINE EROSION

Ocean Circulation in California Coastal Waters. Professor Christopher Mooers, Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, CA

Processes of Beach Erosion Alonr the Oregon and Northern California Coastlines. Dr. Paul D. Komar,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

The Case For/Aeainst Coastal Protection. Dr. Gary B. Griggs, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA

Beach Changes and Sediment Budgets Alonr the Ventura County Coast. Antony R. Orme and Amalie
Brown, University of California, Los Angeles, CA

Data Needs for Shoreline Erosion Plannin.m Richard J. Seymour, Department of Boating and Waterways,
La Jolla, CA

"The Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study" as a'Prototvoe Coastal Resources Study. Daniel
Muslin and Jan Devine, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, CA

The Regulation of Shoreline Stuctures. William Allayuad, California Coastal Commission, Santa Cruz,
CA

Oceanside. CA. Sand Bvnass !yneriment. Carl Enson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, CA

The Politics of Beach Erosion in San Diego: A Reeional Amoroach. Lou Terrell, San Diego Associa-
tions of Governments/City of Del Mar Councilman, Del Mar, CA

Beach Monitoring with Science Teachers. Neil J. Maloney and Gaylen R. Carlson, California State
University, Fullerton, CA

Coastal Faultina and Erosion Hazards in Humboldt County. Northern California. Dr. Derek J. Rust,
Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA

MANAGEMENT TOOLS: RESEARCH, CONFLICT RESOLUTION, NEW APPROACHES

Research and Education: Neglected Resources in Plannine. Joel W. Hedgpeth, Santa Rosa, CA

The Problem of Economic Values and Non-Market Resources in Marine Resource Management Decisions.
Richard J. Tinney, Jr., Center for Environmental Education, Washington, DC

A Microcomouter Assisted Information Svstem for Coastal Zone Decision Making. Dr. Peter K. Weyl,
State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY

Offshore Visual Resource Management The Need for a New Aesthetic. Dorothy Hallock, Chandler, AZ,
and James T. Chappell, San Francisco, CA

Technical Data Review and Management for Resolution of Marine Resources ConflictL Dr. Ruthann
Corwin, OCS Consultant for Marin County, San Rafael, CA and Dr. Michael J. Herz, The Oceanic
Society, San Francisco, CA

147

Management of Marine Conflicts: The Role of Third Parties. Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain and Phyllis
Grifman, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

Manawing Conflict About Uses of Coastal Waters. Geoffrey H. Ball, Forum on Community and Envi-
ronment, Palo Alto, CA, and Charlotte Symons, Education Consortium for Productive Conflict, San
Francisco, CA

Indenendent Environmental Analysis in the Ocean: A Case Study. Dr. William W. Murdoch, University
of California, Santa Barbara, CA

STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S MANAGEMENT ROLE

A Stratepv for the Comprehensive Management of California's Marine Resources. Dr. James W. Rote,
Assembly Office of Research, Sacramento, CA

Unified Manaaement for California's Marine Biotic Resources. Dr. Elmer A. Keen, San Diego State
University, San Diego, CA

State-Local Conflicts and the Manaaement of California's Coastal Waters. Dr. Lowdon Wingo and Jim
Fawcett, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

Can a California Coastal Aaencv Provide Essential Internal Svstems of Checks and Balances?. Carol
Fulton, Friends of the Sea Otter, Carmel, CA

The Future Role of the State in the Conservation and Manarement of Offshore Wildlife Resources.
Lindell L Marsh, Robert D. Thornton and Susan K. Hori, Nossaman, Krueger and Knox, Costa Mesa, CA

What California Can Learn from Other Coastal States in Marine Resource Manaaement. Vickie Allin,
Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Washington, DC

148

To order the OCEAN STUDIES SYMPOSIUM/POLICY PAPERS, please use the order
form below. Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery.

Order from: California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Make checks payable to OCEAN STUDIES SYMPOSIUM/POLICY PAPERS.

Cost is $25.00 per copy including tax and postage.

Number of copies

SHIP TO:

Name

Address

City State Zip

149

Appendix H

PARTIAL ATTENDANCE LIST

.~~~~~~~~~~~ .

:�~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ :,w,.

.A, A,
:: ~ .:
. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; \ ... .t

Robert R. Abbott Peter Baumgartner
202 Cazneau Avenue PG&E, Law Dept.
Sausalito, CA 94965 77 Beale St.
San Francisco, CA 94106
Bill Allayuad
California Coastal Commission Alice Berkner
701 Ocean Street, Room 310 International Bird Rescue Research
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Aquatic Park
Berkeley, CA 94710
Vickie Allin
Office of Coastal Zone Mgmt., NOAA Billie C. Blanchard
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW 5446 8th St., #6
Washington, DC 20235 Carpinteria, CA 93013

Dave Alton Samuel A. Bleicher
Food & Drug Administration 1700 K St., NW, Suite 404
50 United Nations Plaza Washington, DC 20006
San Francisco, CA 94102
Joseph R. Blum
Paul J. Amberg Asst. Regional Director
Brown and Caldwell U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
965 West 18th Street 500 NE Multnomah St., Suite 1692
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Portland, OR 97732

Natasha Atkins Julia Bott
Friends of the Sea Otter SMCAC
1330 Tasso Street P.O. Box 394
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Point Arena, CA 95468

Bob Ayers Linda J. Bozung
Exxon School of Law
P.O. Box 2189 Pepperdine University
Houston, TX 77001 Malibu, CA 90265

Brian E. Baird Chuck Brandes
California Coastal Commission Office of Planning & Research
631 Howard Street 28 Derow Court
San Francisco, CA 94106 Sacramento, CA 95833

Geoffrey Ball Susan Callister
Forum on Community & the Environment Chevron USA
360 Bryant Street 2120 Diamond Blvd.
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Concord, CA 94520

Willard Bascom Phil Carpenter
Coastal Water Research Project Kinnetic Labs
646 West Pacific Coast Highway P.O. Box 1040
Long Beach, CA 90806 Santa Cruz, CA 95061

CDR George Bachtell David D. Caron
Twelfth Coast Guard District 3045 Partridge Ave.
Government Island Oakland, CA 94605
Alameda, CA 94501

153

Joy Chase Gary Davis
California Coastal Commission Channel Islands National Park
701 Ocean Street, Room 310 1901 Spinnaker Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Ventura, CA 93001

Richard Charter Martha Davis
Marin County Planning Dept. Greenpeace
Civic Center Building E, Fort Mason Center
San Rafael, CA 94503 San Francisco, CA 94123

Biliana Cicin-Sain W. Jackson Davis
226Y2 South Poinsettia The Thurman Laboratories
Los Angeles, CA 90036 University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 94064
Wallis H. Clark, Jr.
Animal Science Dept. Larry Dean
University of California P.O. Box 120
Davis, CA 95616 Calipahra, CA 92233

Timothy Cohen Claire Dedrick
California Coastal Commission Executive Director
P.O. Box 1450 State Land Commission
Long Beach, CA 90801 1807 13th St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Don E. Conner
Kelco Division, Merck & Co. Gregory DeGiere, Consultant
8355 Aero Drive Joint Committe on Fisheries and Aquaculture
San Diego, CA 92123 1127 11th St., Suite 605
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fred S. Conte
Aquaculture Extension Doug DeMaster
University of California Southwest Fisheries Center
Davis, CA 95616 P.O. Box 271
La Jolla, CA 92038
Charles F. Cooper
Center for Marine Studies Leslie Dierauf
San Diego State University CA Marine Mammal Center
San Diego, CA 92182 GGNRA, Fort Cronkhite
Sausalito, CA 94965
Kati Corsauklt
California Coastal Commission James A. Dobbin
631 Howard Street James Dobbin Associates, Inc.
San Francisco, CA 94105 85 King St., Suite 302
Toronto, Ontario MSC1C3
Ruth Corwin Canada
94 Crest Road
Novato, CA 94947 Thomas P. Dohl
Center for Coastal Marine Studies
Christopher Davis University of California
Consul Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Canadian Consulate General
1 Maritime Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94111

154

Peggy Dole Carla D. Frisk
California Energy Commission California Coastal Commission
1111 Howe Ave. 735 State St., Suite 616
Sacramento, CA 95825 Santa Barbara, CA 93105

William Doyle, Director Margot Feuer
Center for Coastal Marine Studies 21340 Mariposa de Oro
University of California Malibu, CA 90265
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
David Fischer
David L Duncan Coastal Studies
Environmental Protection Agency University of West Florida
215 Fremont St. Pensacola, FL 32504
San Francisco, CA 94105
Michael L. Fischer
John L Dupey Executive Director
West Coast Aquaculture Foundation California Coastal Commission
700 Cannery Row, Suite JJ 631 Howard St.
Monterey, CA 93940 San Francisco, CA 94105

Dana Elligen James Ford
Dialog Information Services ARCO
3460 Hillview Ave. 515 South Flower St.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 Los Angeles, CA 90089

Carl Enson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers August Felando
P.O. Box 2711 American Tunaboat Association
Los Angeles, CA 90053 One Tuna Lane
San Diego, CA 92101
John Epting
Office of Coastal Zone Mgmt, NOAA E. C. Fullerton, Director
3300 Whitehaven St., NW Department of Fish and Game
Washington, DC 1416 Ninth St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Larry Espinosa
Department of Fish and Game Carol Fulton
2201 Garden Rd. Friends of the Sea Otter
Monterey, CA 92118 P.O. Box 221220
Carmel CA 93922
Lois Ewen
567 "B" Ave. Robert Gaal
Coronado, CA 92118 State Lands Commission
100 Oceangate, Suite 300
Phyllis Faber Long Beach, CA 90802
212 Del Casa
Mill Valley, CA 94965 Graham A. E. Gall
Animal Science Department
Tim Farley University of California
Department of Fish and Game Davis, CA 95616
1416 Ninth St.
Sacramento, CA 95814 William Geyer
Geyer Associates
1029 K St.
Sacramento, CA 95814

155

Peter Gogan Gary Griggs
Point Reyes-Farallon Islands Dept. of Applied Sciences
National Marine Sanctuary University of California
Point Reyes, CA 94956 Santa Cruz, CA 95064

Richard Golden Frank Guy
State Lands Commission Union Oil Company
1807 13th St. 461 South Boylston St.
Sacamento, CA 95814 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Daniel Goodman Dorothy Hallock
Scripps Institution 11432 Redfield Rd.
La Jolla, CA 92093 Chancler, AZ 85224

William T. Gorham Lad Handelman
375 Gifford Ave., #319 California Sea Farms, Inc.
Watsonville, CA 95076 219 East Stearns Wharf
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Daniel Gotshall
1851 Don Ave. David Hankin
Los Osas, CA 93402 Dept. of Fisheries
Humboldt State University
Maria Gottdiener Arcata, CA 95521
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard St. Susan Hansch
San Francisco, CA 94105 California Coastal Commission
631 Howard St.
Zeke Grader San Francisco, CA 94106
Pacific Coast Federation of
Fisherman's Associatios, Inc. Judith E. Hansen
3000 Bridgeway Building, Suite 104 Marine Bioassay Laboratories
Sausalito, CA 94966 1234 Highway 1
Watsonville, CA 95076
Keith Forrest Graham
P.O. Box 727 Jim Hardwick
San Bruno, CA 94066 Dept. of Fish & Game
2201 Garden Rd.
John Grant Monterey, CA 93940
350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90802 Richard Harris
Chevron USA
Deni Green Box 8000
Office of Planning & Research Concord, CA 94540
1400 Tenth St.
Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. & Mrs. Joel W. Hedgpeth
5660 Montecito Ave.
Eldon V. C. Greenburg Santa Rosa, CA 95404
1901 L Street, Suite 805
Washington, DC 20036 Burr Henneman
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Phyllis Grifman Shoreline Hwy.
7323 Greensboro St. Stinson Beach, CA
Goleta, CA 93117

156

Michael J. Herz E. A. Keen
The Oceanic Society Dept. of Geography
Building E, Fort Mason Center San Diego State University
San Francisco, CA 941233 San Diego, CA 92182

Susan K. Hori Donald F. Keene
Nossaman, Krueger & Knox ARCO
695 Town Center Dr., #1630 P.O. Box 147
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Bakersfield, CA 93302

J. B. Hundley Jocdelyn Kempe
ARCO Oil & Gas Co. Chevron, USA
P.O. Box 147 585 Market St.
Bakersfield, CA 93302 San Francisco, CA 94105

George Jenkins Patrick A. Kennedy
Pacific Ocean Policy Studies Rodgers, Golden & Halpern
74 Roosevelt Cirdcle 1427 Vine St.
Palo Alto, CA 94306 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Charles R. Jennings William M. Kier
P.O. Box 5620 Environmental Policy Specialist
Elmwood Station Senate Office of Research
Berkeley, CA 94705 1100 J. St., Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Jay A. Johnson
Nekton, Inc. Lance Kiley
11578 Sorrento Valley Rd. State Lands Commission
San Diego, CA 92121 1807 13th St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mary Ann Johnson
745 Pine St. Cdr. Charles V. King
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 Fleet Area Coordinatiinng &
Survelliance Facility
Peter A. Johnson Naval Air Station, North Island
Office of Technology Assessment San Diego, CA 92135
U.&S. Congress
Washington, DC 20510 Lloyd W. Kitazono
California Maritime Academy
Kenneth S. Kamlet P.O. Box 1392
National Wildlife Federation Vallejo, CA 02543
1412 16th St., NW
Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Robert W. Knecht
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Irwin Karp Woods Hole, MA 02543
Grattan/Gersick/Karp
182 Second St., Suite 215 Paul D. Komar
San Francisco, CA 94105 School of Oceanography
Oregon State University
Ronald S. Katz Corvallis, OR 97331
Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett
2 Palo Alto Square Bud Laurant
Palo Alto, CA 94304 213 Beach
Morro Bay, CA 93442

157

Rueben Lasker RADM A. P. Manning
CalCOFI Coordinator Commander 11th Coast Guard Dist.
University of California 400 Oceangate
La Jolla, 92093 Long Beach, CA 90822

Michele Lemay Lindell L Marsh
James Dobbin Assoc. Nossaman, Kreuger & Marsh
1551 K Street, NW 695 Town Center Drive
Washington, DC 20005 Costa Mesa, cA 92626

Welton L Lee Sharon Maier
California Academy of Sciences Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.
Golden Gate Park P.O. Box 504
San Francisco, CA 94118 Sunnyvale, CA 94088

Leland R. Lewis Neil Maloney
P.O. Box 46 Dept. of Earth Science
Carmel, CA 93921 CA State University
Fullerton, CA 92634
Jack Liebster
311 Tanner Heights Jean C. Mandvill
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Pacific Fisheries Mgmt. Council
526 SW Mill St.
Terry L Leitzell Portland, OR 97201
1575 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005 Michael Martin
State Mussel Watch
Jody Loeffler Dept. of Fish & Game
California Coastal Commission 2201 Garden Rd.
631 Howard St. Monterey, CA 93940
San Francisco, CA 94106
Janet Maughan
Roy W. Lowe The William H. Donner Foundation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 630 Fifth Ave.
P.O. Box 524 New York, NY 10111
Neward, CA 94560
Don Maurer
Nancy Lucast Southern California Ocean
California Coastal Commission Studies Consortium
P.O. Box 1450 California State University
Long Beach, CA 90801 Long Beach, CA 90840

Virginia Lyle William D. Maxwell
11 Chancellor Place Dept. of Fish & Game
Berkeley, CA 94705 1416 Ninth St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Rolf Mall
Dept. of Fish & Game Maxine McCloskey
350 Golden Shore The Whale Center
Long Beach, CA 90802 3929 Piedmont Ave.
Oakland, CA 94611
Laura Manning
7323 Greensboro St.
Goleta, CA 93117

158

Scott McCreary Dan Muslin
California Coastal Conservancy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 2711
Oakland, CA 94612 Los Angeles, CA 90053

Michael McGill Michael Neushul
SF Planning & Urban Research Neushul Mariculture
312 Sutter St. P.O. Box 1416
San Francisco, CA 94108 Goleta, CA 93116

Ronald H. McPeak Ijay Noorany
Kelco Division, Merck &8 Co. Dept. of Civil Engineering
2145 East Belt St. San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92113 San Diego, CA 92182

Charles Mehlett
Dept. of Parks & Recreation Melvin Nutter
2211 Garden Rd. California Coastal Commission
Monterey, CA 93940 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Margaret Mercado
Dept. of Boating & Waterways Paul Olin
1459 Meridith Way 2504 Bates Dr.
Carmichael, CA 95608 Davis, CA 95616

Eric Metz Carole Onorato
California Coastal Commission State Water Resources
631 Howard St. Control Board
San Francisco, CA 94105 1416 Ninth St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Christopher Mooers
Dept. of Oceanography Commander L A. Onstad
Naval Postgraduate School U.S. Coast Guard
Monterey, CA 93940 400 Oceangate Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90822
Bill Morrison
1387 Fitch Way Antony R. Orme
Sacramento, CA 95825 Dept. of Geography
University of California
Daniel E. Morse Los Angeles, CA 90024
Marine Science Inst.
University of California Julie Packard
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation
886 Cannery Row
William P. Muellenhogg Monterey, CA 93940
Tetra Tech, Inc., Environmental
Research Lab Arvid Pardo
200 SW 35th St. Sea Grant Institutional Program
Corvallis, OR 97333 University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90007
William W. Murdock
Dept. of Biological Sciences J. Patterson
University of California 10235 West 18th Place
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Lakewood, CO 80215

159

Ronn Storro-Patterson John Richards
The Whale Center 4086-A Via Zorro
1007 Leneve Place Santa Barbara CA 93110
E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
G.L Richardson
Don M. Peterson Southern California Edison Co.
Dept. of Ecology P.O. Box 800, Rm. 497
Shorelines Planning Section Rosemead, CA 91770
Olympia, WA 98504
Mindy Richter
Ken Peterson 272 Sadowa St.
Monterey Peninsula Herald San Francisco, CA 94112
P.O. Box 271
Monterey, CA 93940 Renne Louise Robin
1627 Filbert St.
Joe Petrillo San Francisco, CA 94123
California Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 Sid Robinson
Oakland, CA 94612 Port of Los Angeles
P.O. Box 151
Al Petrovich San Pedro, CA 90733
Dept. of Fish & Game
1416 Ninth St. Suzanne Rogalin
Sacramento, CA 95814 California Coastal Commission
631 Howard St.
Rose T. Pfund San Francisco, CA 94105
University of Hawaii Sea
Grant College Program Joyce Rosenthal
1000 Pope Road, Room 221 Greenpeace
Honolulu, HI 96822 2007 R Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Carol Pillsbury
Channel Islands National Park James W. Rote
1901 Spinnaker Dr. Assembly Office of Research
Ventura, CA 93001 1100 J St., Rm. 535
Sacramento, CA 95814
Patricia Port
U.S. Dept. of the Interior Derek J. Rust
P.O. Box 36098 Dept. of Geology
San Francisco, CA 94102 Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521
S. C. Rainey
2715 Shasta Rd. James M. Ryerson
Berkeley, CA 94708 California Coastal Commission
735 State St., Suite 626
Otto Rath Santa Barbara, CA 93101
19827 White Dove Trail
Crosby, TX 77532 R. E. Schlotterbeck
MBC
Dan Ray 947 Newhall St.
California Coastal Commission Costa Mesa, CA 92627
P.O. Box 4946
Eureka, CA 95501

160

Ronald R. Schroeder David Sibbet
Southern California Edison Co. Sibbet & Associates
P.O. Box 800, Rm. 497 762 16th St.
Rosemead, CA 91770 San Francisco, CA 94118

Donald L Schultze Deborah Sides
Dept. of Fish & Game 1113 Austin Ave.
1416 Ninth St. Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Sacramento, CA 95814
Edward S. Simons
Arent H. Schuyler, Jr. Dept. of Fish & Game
3239 Cliff Dr. 1416 Ninth St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93108 89 Sacramento, CA 95814

Naomi Schwartz, Chairwoman Sabrina Simpson
California Coastal Commission California Coastal Commission
468 Pasel Del Descanso 631 Howard St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93105 San Francisco, CA 94105

Doug Segar Edmund Smith
SEAMOcean, Inc. 435 Terconi Cirde
P.O. Box 1627 Santa Rosa, CA 95901
Wheaton, MD 20902
Randall W. Smith
Richard J. Seymour U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Dept. of Boating & Waterways 2800 Cottage Way
Scripps Institute Sacramento, CA 95825
La Jolla, CA 92093
Leo Snowman
Michael Shapiro Western Geophysical
California Energy Commission P.O. Box 2469
1516 Ninth St. Houston, TX 77001
Sacramento, CA 95819
Robert H. Sollen
William N. Shaw Santa Barbara News Press
Telonicher Marine Lab 825 North Soledad Ave.
P.O. Box AE Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Trinidad, CA 95570
Fred N. Speiss, Director
Jeri Sheele Inst. of Marine Resources
888B 35th Ave. University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95062 La Jolla, CA 92093

Clinton P. Sherburne Robert Spies
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. Lawrence Livermore National Lab
P.O. Box 504 P.O. Box 808
Sunnyvale, CA 94056 Livermore, CA 94550

Kurt M. Shusterich Elaine Stamman
Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. SEAMOcean, Inc.
Woods Hole, MA 02543 P.O. Box 1627
Wheaton, MD 20902

161

Jo Stollard -LCDR-Jan TercVeen
225 Wood St. 11th Coast Guard Distzict
Pacific Grove, CA 93950 400 Oceangate, Rm. 917
Long Beach, CA 90822
Reid T. Stone, Regional Mngr.
Minerals Mngt. Service Lou Terrell
1340 West Sixth St., Suite 244 San Diego Assoc. of Governments
Los Angdeles, CA 90017 1200 Third Ave.
San Diego, CA 92101
Heather A. Stout
1417 L Street Stephanie Thornton
Davis, CA 95616 Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing
Association, Inc.
Dale Straughan 216 H Street
7015 Marcell St. Eureka, CA 95501
Paramount, CA 90723
Richard Tinney
James L Sullivan, Program Mngr. Center for Environmental Education
CA Sea Grant College Program 624 9th St., NW
University of California Washington, DC 20001
La Jolla, CA 92093
L Thomas Tobin
John Temple Swing California Coastal Commission
Council on Foreign Rdelations 631 Howard St.
58 E. 68th St. San Francisco, CA 94105
New York, NY 10021
William Travis
California Coastal Commission
Mary Lou Swisher 631 Howard St.
California Coastal Commission San Francisco, CA 94105
631 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105 Michael Tripp
Richter & Tripp Associates
Charlotte Symons 272 Sadowa Street
Education Consortium San Francisco, CA 94112
500 Sutter St.
San Francisco, CA 94102 Tom Trott
P.O. Box 4279
Frank H. Talbot Houston, TX 77001
California Academy of Sciences
Golden Gate Park Rod Tuttle
San Francisco, CA 94118 Dept. of Parks of Recreation
1416 Ninth St., 14th Floor
Barbara Jo Talley Sacramento, CA 95814
4347 Stollwood Dr.
Carmichael, CA 95608 Glenn R. VanBlaricom
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Robert N. Tasto P.O. Box 67
Dept. of Fish & Game San Simeon, CA 93452
411 Burgess Dr.
Menlo Park, CA 94025 Elizabeth Venrick
Scripps Institution
University of California
La Jolla, CA 92093

162

Don Walsh William J. Whalen
Director, IMES SF Planning & Urban Research
University of Southern California 312 Sutter St.
Los Angeles, CA 90089 San Francisco, CA 94108

Sonja H. Watson Patty Williams
Office of Coastal Zone NY Times Info. Services
Management, NOAA 6420 Wilshire Blvd., #1100
3300 Whitehaven St., NW Los Angeles, CA 90048
Washington, DC 20235
Michael B. Wilmar
Steven Webster SF Bay Conservation and
Monterey Bay Aquarium Development Commission
886 Cannery Row 30 Van Ness Ave.
Monterey, CA 93940 San Francisco, CA 94102

Conrad G Welling Lowdon Wingo
Ocean Minerals Co. School of Urban 8
465 North Bernardo Ave. Regional Planning
Mountain View, CA 94043 University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Martha Weiss
California Coastal Commission Charles Woodhouse
631 Howard St. Santa Barbara Natural
San Francisco, CA 94105 History Museum
2559 Puesta Del Sol Rd.
Adrian M. Wenna Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Marine Science Institute
University of California Michael Wornum
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 California Coastal Commission
570 Riveria Circle
Naida West Larkspur, CA 94939
Geyer Associates
1029 K Street, Suite 33 Henry W. Wright
Sacramento, CA 95814 WOGA
727 W. Seventh St.
Niels West Los Angeles, CA 91108
Dept. of Geography &
Marine Affairs Thomas L. Wright
University of Rhode Island Chevron USA
Kingston, RI 02881 P.O. Box 8011
Concord, CA 94524
William Westermeyer
Woods Hole Oceanographic Int. D.L. Ziegler
Woods Hole, MA 02543 Chevron USA
P.O. Box 8100
Peter K. Weyl Concord, CA 94524
Marine Sciences Research
State University of New York John Zieaold
Stony Brook, NY 11794 Sierra Club
1228 N St.
Sacramento, CA 95814

163

Don Walsh William J. Whalen
Director, IMES SF Planning a Urban Research
University of Southern California 312 Sutter St.
Los Angeles, CA 90089 San Francisco, CA 94108

Conrad G Welling Lowdon Wingo
Ocean Minerals Co. School of Urban &
465 North Bernardo Ave. Regional Planning
Mountain View, CA 94043 University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Martha Weiss
California Coastal Commission Charles Woodhouse
631 Howard St. Santa Barbara Natural
San Francisco, CA 94105 History Museum
2559 Puesta Del Sol Rd.
Adrian M. Wenner Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Marine Science Institute
University of California Michael Wornum
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 California Coastal Commission
570 Riveria Circle
Naida West Larkspur, CA 94939
Geyer Associates
1029 K Street, Suite 33 Henry W. Wright
Sacramento, CA 95814 WOGA
727 W. Seventh St.
Niels West Los Angeles, CA 91108
Dept. of Geography &
Marine Affairs Thomas L. Wright
University of Rhode Island Chevron USA
Kingston, RI 02881 P.O. Box 8011
Concord, CA 94524
William Westermeyer
Woods Hole Oceanographic Int. D.L Ziegler
Woods Hole, MA 02543 Chevron USA
P.O. Box 8100
Peter K. Weyl Concord, CA 94524
Marine Sciences Research
State University of New York John Zierold
Stony Brook, NY 11794 Sierra Club
1228 N St.
Sacramento, CA 95814

163