Pacific coast regional coastal zone management plan

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

PACIFIC COAST REGIONAL

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAW

Kip

-IRF"A

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

r
VtCrt;M,
M

. ...... . ... ..........

Richard Hildreth, Principal Investigator
Biliana Cicin-Sain
Marc Hershman COASTAL ZONE
Jon Isaacs
INFORMATION CENTER

December 31,1989

This roject was funded by the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Ei Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
HT xation, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.,
393
07 a grant made under Section 309 of the Coastal Zone
@33 nent Act of 1972, as amended, to the National Coastal
1989 as Research and Development Institute, Newport, Oregon.

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

PACIFIC COAST REGIONAL
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Property of CSC Library

Richard Hildreth,
Principal Investigator
Biliana Cicin-sain
Marc Hershman
Jon Isaacs

December 31, 1989

This project was funded by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.,
through a grant made under Section 309 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, to the National Coastal
Resources Research and Development Institute, Newport, Oregon.

The investigators also would like to acknowledge the
manuscript assistance of Nancy Farmer,- the bibliographic
assistance of Andrea Coffman, the special assistance of Oregon
State University Professor Jim Good with this plan's coastal
hazards section, and the research assistance of Randall
Baker, Tanya Gross, Matthew Morris, and Jennifer Scholl.

Cover photo courtesy of Oregon Sea Grant.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . iv

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

II* PROJECT METHODOLOGY * * * * * * * * * * , * * * * * * 3

III. RECENT REGIONAL USES OF 309 FUNDS . . . . . . . . . . 4

IV. A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR TARGETING REGIONAL PROBLEMS . 6

V. ELEMENTS OF A WEST COAST REGIONAL PLAN . . . . . . . 7

A. COASTAL WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B. COASTAL WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

C. COASTAL HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Important Hazard Issues . . . . . . . . . . 15

D. SHORELAND USE ALLOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2. Regional Needs and Priorities . . . . . . . 17

E. CONTIGUOUS OCEAN WATERS . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2. Regional Needs and Priorities . . . . . . . 20

VI. REGIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

A. INFORMATION EXCHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1. introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2. Feasibility of Linking Geographic
Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3. Other Regional Needs and Priorities . . . . 28

B. SECTION 3091S INSTITUTIONAL ROLE . . . . . . . . 29

C. ENHANCED ROLE FOR NCRI AND THE REGIONAL
CZM BOARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

.D. PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

VII. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR REGIONAL PLANNING

A. STATE OF THE REGION'S COASTAL ZONE: NATURAL
RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AND
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 32

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2. Natural Resources Development . . . . . . . 34

3. Other Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4. Coastal Environmental Quality . . . . . . . 50

5. References for Section VII.A . . . . . . . . 55

B. STATE GOALS FOR CZM RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT, AND
PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

2. State-by-State Summary . . . . . . . . . . 59

3. conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

C. FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS ESPECIALLY
RELEVANT TO CZM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

1. Minerals Management Service Environmental
Studies Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

2. Saltonstall-Kennedy Grants . . . . . . . . 72

3. NOAA Marine Sanctuary Program . . . . . . . 74

4. NOAA Estuarine Reserve Research System . . 75

5. CZMA Section 306 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6. Sea Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7. National Coastal Research Institute . . . . 80

8. Corps of Engineers Shore Protection . . . . 81

9. Federal Floodplain Management Activities 82

iii

10. Coastal Barriers Resource System . . . . . 83

11. EPA National Estuaries Program . . . . . . 83

12. EPA Near Coastal Waters Initiative . . . . 85

13. Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act . . . . . 86

14. Land and Water Conservation Fund . . . . . 87

15. USGS/NOAA EEZ Seafloor Regional
Mapping Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

16. References for Section VII.C . . . . . . . . 88

VIII. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

A. OCRM SPRING 1989 309 GUIDANCE . . . . . . . . A-1

B. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. SUMMARIES OF INSTATE MEETING IN EACH STATE C-1

D. PARTICIPANTS LIST, AGENDA, AND DRAFT PLAN
OUT LINE FOR REGIONAL WORKSHOP . . . . . . . . D-1

E. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR PACIFIC COAST REGIONAL
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . E-1

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. DIRECTORY OF WEST COAST CZMA 309 PROJECTS . . . . 5

TABLE 2. WEST COAST REGIONAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
WORKSHOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

TABLE 3. REGIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS . . . . . . . 9

I. INTRODUCTION

The intent of grants awarded under Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) Section 309 (16 U.S.C. 1456b) is to
improve interstate planning in coastal management through
coordination between coastal states and between federal and
state entities. The Section 309 Interstate Grant Program is
administered by the National oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Office of ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM). OCRM's regulations for the 309 program are
located at 15 CFR Part 932. OCRM's spring 1989 309 guidance
document is included as APPENDIX A.

The coastal zone management programs of the four
Northeast Pacific Ocean states were among the first to receive
federal approval. The programs are now 10-12 years old, but
the state coastal managers only recently have begun planning,
coordinating, and implementing their research and management
efforts with an eye toward regional needs. While each state
needs to formulate its own approach to development and
management in its coastal zone, regional considerations must
also play a prominent role. From an economic perspective,
development of coastal and ocean resources off one state can
affect important sectors of the economies of the other coastal
states in the region, both positively and negatively. From an
environmental point of view, planning for the conservation and
management of living marine resources and their habitats is
often best approached from a regional basis. Too, the risks
associated with some types of ocean and coastal development in
one state can threaten sensitive areas in the coastal zones of
other states. Considering and acting on these kinds of
regional considerations require regional approaches to coastal
resources management and the formation of multi-state planning
and decision-making mechanisms. Regional management programs
can achieve economies of scale on issues common to the coastal
ecosystem; regional planning can focus resources on the most
crucial needs; and regional research can provide a permanent
regional data base of comprehensive resource management
information. Beyond the requirements of the CZMA Interstate
Program, there is an opportunity to improve coordination among
the four states' CZM activities and begin long-range planning
of interstate projects.

This 309 project's goal was to produce a comprehensive,
long-range coastal zone management plan for the Northeast
Pacific Ocean region which identifies research, planning, and
coordination projects addressing priority regional coastal
zone management issues for funding through the 309 program and
other available state and federal sources. That plan is set
forth in this report and summarized in Table 3 below. The
Congressional reduction of 309 appropriations from past levels
of about $1 million per year to $400,000 for FY 90 emphasizes

the need to think broadly and creatively in planning for
interstate coastal zone management.

For purposes of section 309 funding, OCRM has divided
U.S. coastal areas into regions, with the Northeast Pacific
region consisting of California, Oregon, Washington, and
Alaska. The Northeast Pacific 309 program is administered on
behalf of the four states by:

Earle Buckley, Director
National Coastal Resources Research
and Development Institute (NCRI)
Hatfield Marine Science Center
2030 S. Marine Science Drive
Newport, Oregon 97365
(503) 867-3300

A regional CZM board consisting of the four states'
coordinators for 309 grants meets periodically to select west
coast projects for which 309 funding will be sought from OCRM
by NCRI.

This project's investigators and the 309 coordinators for
each of the four states are:

Alaska

Jon Isaacs Gretchen Kaiser
Jon Isaacs*& Associates Coastal Program Coordinator
2418 Forest Park Drive Division of Governmental
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Coordination
(907) 274-9719 (office) P.O. Box AW
(907) 279-8900 (home) Juneau, Alaska 99811
FAX No. (907) 276-6117 (907) 465-3562

California

Biliana Cicin-Sain Jody Loeffler
ocean and Coastal Policy Center California Coastal
Commission
University of California, 631 Howard Street
Santa Barbara and San Francisco, CA 94105
College of Marine Studies (415) 543-8555
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware 19716 Dr. Gordon Snow
(302) 451-8086 State Resources Agency
FAX No. (302) 292-3668 1416 Ninth Street, Rm. 1311
Sacramento, CA 94814

Oregon

Dick Hildreth, Principal Dick Mathews
Investigator Dept. of Land Conservation
School of Law & Development
University of Oregon 1175 Court Street N.E.
Eugene, OR 97403-1221 Salem, OR 97310-0590
(503) 686-3866 (503) 378-4928
FAX No. (503) 686-3985

Washington

Marc Hershman Therese Swanson
Inst. for Marine Studies, HF-05 Dept. of Ecology
University of Washington State of Washington (PV-11)
Seattle, WA 98195 Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 545-2469 (206) 438-7424
FAX No. (206) 543-4385 FAX No. (206) 438-7537

II. PROJECT METHODOLOGY

The project team relied heavily on three mechanisms to
prepare a plan: a project questionnaire; in-state meetings
held in each of the four states attended by representatives of
state, federal, and local government, industry academic
institutions and other potential users of marine and coastal
resources; and a regional workshop, attended by three to four
representatives from each state, that further refined and set
priorities for addressing the management issues raised in the
first two mechanisms. In the project questionnaire (see
APPENDIX B) mailed to state agency personnel, regional federal
officials, marine academics, and user and public interest
group representatives in each state, and at an "instate
meeting" held in each state (see APPENDIX C) comment was
sought on priority issues preliminarily identified by the
investigators including: (1) coastal wetlands; (2) shoreline
protection; (3) public access; (4) aquaculture facility
siting; (5) integrating new approaches to estuary planning and
management into coastal zone management; (6) state and
regional approaches to coastal water quality; (7) the CZM
implications of offshore development in state and federal
waters; (a) CZM's role in implementing MARPOL Annex V's
requirements for reducing vessel discharges of plastics and
garbage.

Also through the questionnaire and the four instate
meetings, the investigators sought to: (a) identify and
prioritize coastal resource management problems that are
common problems, i.e., present in more than one state in the
four-state region, or shared problems, i.e., two or more
states are physically, economically, or otherwise linked to

the problem; (b) identify state and federal agencies with
coastal responsibilities and their long-term goals and
objectives relative to management of those problems; (c)
identify gaps or duplication in those agency responsibilities;
(d) identify information, data, study, and research needs
relevant to the common and shared problems; (e) categorize
those needs as "immediate" (implementation within 1-2 years
with budget requirements and potential funding sources), "mid-
term" (3-5 years), and "long-term" (5-10 years); and (f)
examine the computer systems of each state to determine the
feasibility of linking the systems for easier data and
information exchange regarding common and shared coastal
resource management problems.

From the questionnaire responses and instate meetings, a
plan outline was developed for review at the project's
Regional Workshop which was held September 10-12, 1989 in
Asilomar, California and attended by three or four state
agency representatives from each of the four states, NCRI's
director, the four project investigators, and a Sea Grant
marine extension faculty member. The plan outline, workshop
agenda, and participants list are included in APPENDIX D.

A draft plan was mailed for comment to all meeting and
workshop participants and questionnaire respondents in the
four states. Based on comments received, this final plan was
submitted to NCRI on December 31, 1989.

NCRI and the proiect investigators ar)preciate very much
the efforts of all those persons who participated in this
regional planning process.

III. RECENT REGIONAL USES OF 309 FUNDS

Past 309 projects in the region as listed in TABLE I have
emphasized the Columbia River as the region's most significant
interstate estuary. Several of the Columbia River projects
have addressed water quality issues. In November 1989 the
governors of Oregon and Washington withdrew their nomination
of the Columbia River estuary for designation as an estuary of
national significance under the federal Environmental
Protection Agency's National Estuary Program (NEP) and
proposed a joint state funded water quality program instead.
OCRM's spring 1989 309 guidance document gives priority to 309
projects affecting estuaries where management conferences have
been convened as part of the National Estuary Program.
However, a more specific role for the 309 program in NEP
estuaries remains to be articulated. The other west coast
NEPs, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and Santa Monica Bay are
not interstate. A fiscal year 1989 309 project with Marc
Hershman as Principal Investigator will examine the respective

DIRECTORY OF WEST COAST CZM 309 PROJECT

CZ85 Columbia River Estuary Interstte Management Plan (Fox, 1986)
COMPLETED

CZ85 Interstate Living Marine Resource Information Project: Marine
Fishes and Invertebrates (Bottom, 1986-1987) COMPLETED

CZ86 Columbia River Estruary Interstate Management (Fox, 1986-1987)
COMPLETED

CZ86 Sea Otter Population Assessment and Ecology (Jeffries, 1986-1988)
COMPLETED

CZ86 Effects of Acoustic Signals on Crustaceans (Knaster, 1986-1988)
COMPLETED

CZ86 Organic Wastes in High Energy Nearshore Oceanic Ecosystems: Fates
and Effects (Gonor, 1986-1988) COMPLETED

CZ87 Columbia River Estuary Hazardous Waste Spill Contingency Plan
(Fox, 1987-1988) COMPLETED

CZ87 Feasibility of Remote Sensing to Idendify the Aquaculture
Potential of Coastal Waters (Paust, 1987-1988) COMPLETED

CZ87 Estumation of the Carrying Capacity of the Coastal Environment for
Juvenille Salmon (Francis, 1987-1989)

CZ87 Fishery Resource Mapping (Starr, 1987-1989)

CZ88 Regional Sediment Dynamics and Shoreline Stability in Littoral
Cells of the Pacific Northwest (Peterson, 1988-)

CZ88 Columbia River Estuary Interstate Management: Regulatory Framework
for Evaluting Sediment Quality in the Columbia River Estuary
(Barnes, 1988-1989)

CZ88 Improving State and Federal Ocean Governance Capabilities in the
Northeast Pacific (Cicin-Sain & Hildreth, 1988-1989)

CZ88 Comprehensive Regional Ocean and Coastal Resources Management
Planning (Hildreth, 1989)

CZ89 Effectiveness of Mitigration Measures Used to Resolve Conflicts
Between Offeshore Industrial Development and Fisheries (Laychak,
1989-)

CZ89 The Contrubution of Coastal Zone Management Program to Improved
Coastal Water Quality (Hershman, 1989-)

CZ89 Columbia River Estury Wetland Management Planning Framework
(Barnes, 1989-)

TABLE 1

roles and relationships of the various federal initiatives
regarding coastal water quality and perhaps shed further light
on the relationship between NEP and the 309 program.

To date no 309 project has dealt with the region's other
interstate river, the Klamath, whose headwaters are in Oregon
but whose estuary is in California. Also, no previous project
has involved any of the region's National Estuarine Research
Reserves (NERR) established under Coastal Zone Management Act
section 315; OCRM's spring 1989 309 guidance document now
gives priority to estuarine research projects which use the
NERR system. The potential for coordinated interstate
research in the region's four NERR's, Padilla Bay,
Washington; South Slough (Coos Bay), Oregon; Elkhorn Slough
and Tijuana River, California, none of which is in an
interstate estuary, should be explored by the regional CZM
Board. Appropriate amendments to this plan could be made
pursuant to the plan amendment procedures set forth below.

Most of the 309 projects listed in TABLE 1 have not been
closely integrated into agency operations; generally, they
have produced research reports or plans. Approaches to
changing this situation are discussed further below.

IV. A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR TARGETING REGIONAL PROBLEMS

West coast 309 projects involving resources shared by
more than one state generally are limited to the Columbia
River, in which the boundary between Oregon and Washington is
located, and contiguous state and federal Pacific ocean waters
stretching from Alaska to California, which can be viewed as a
north-south river linking the region. Thus this plan also
projects continuing emphasis in the region's 309 program on
coastal management problems that are faced by more than one
state in the region even though they do not involve a shared
interstate resource. For such common problems, a regional
approach often makes sense where: (1) federal policy
encourages uniformity among the states in responding to the
common problem; (2) the common problem is new or emerging and
there is a high degree of uncertainty creating a need for
definition and making consideration of alternative responses
timely; or (3) the common problem is of such high priority
that action among the states can improve or expedite
resolution of the problem. These criteria provided the
framework for discussion of common problems confronted by the
region's coastal managers at the project's regional workshop.

As summarized in TABLE 2, the problem areas in which
priorities were established (as discussed further below)
included: (1) coastal wetlands; (2) coastal water quality; (3)
coastal hazards; (4) shoreland use allocations; and (5)

contiguous ocean waters. Plan elements for each of these five
problem areas are set forth next in section V. Each one of
these plan elements describes the issues to be resolved and
priorities for their resolution. The purpose of these plan
elements is to provide assistance to the 309 program and other
relevant federal and state programs in utilizing program
resources and funds to effectively address priority regional
coastal management issues. A bibliography for each of the
plan elements is included in APPENDIX E. Implementation of
the plan elements is summarized in TABLE 3 and discussed
further in section VI below.

V. ELEMENTS OF A WEST COAST REGIONAL PLAN

A. COASTAL WETLANDS

The policy and practice of wetlands protection is
receiving increased attention at all levels of government.
President Bush appears committed to stronger federal policies
and programs. William Reilly, Administrator of the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, is formulating specific
proposals. The National Wetlands Policy Forum proposed a
variety of reforms, including a no-net-loss policy, in its
report at the end of 1988 which received considerable national
attention. President Bush has established a federal Wetlands
Interagency Task Force to examine implementation of a no-net-
loss policy and signed December 1989 legislation providing $70
million over four years as federal matching funds for wetlands
purchase and preservation. EPA has established a grants
program under Clean water Act section 104(b)(3) to support
refinements and enhancements to state wetlands protection
programs (see 54 Federal Register 51470 (Dec. 15, 1989)).
NOAA has established a working group to develop policy and
guidelines for achieving no-net-loss of coastal marine
wetlands. The 1989 Oregon legislature enacted major wetlands
planning legislation and Washington has established a state
Wetlands Policy Forum to draft a wetlands protection bill for
the next legislative session.

In each of the instate meetings, and at the regional
workshop, wetland protection issues were discussed in detail.
The two aspects that stood out prominently were wetlands
mitigation, which itself involves a variety of sub-issues, and
identification and delineation of wetlands. A variety of
related issues were mentioned that often occur in connection
with issues of wetland protection: delegation of Section 404
authority to the states, dredged material management,
cumulative effect of development on wetlands, and effects of
accelerated sea-level rise on wetland areas.

TABLE 2
West Coast Regional Coastal Zone Management Workshop
Asilomar, California
September 10-12, 1989

REGIONAL PROBLEMS Priority Time Frame Funding Comments
High Low Short Med. Long Other 309

WETLANDS (no-net- x x Common problem;
loss, standards, CREST FY 89
monitoring, restor. 309 project
creation, banking)

WATER QUALITY
NPS & CZM x AK x x x Hershman FY 89
309 project;

Estuary Planning x AK x x EPA/NEP/NWC:

Marpol V x x Sea Grant WA Marine Debris
Info. Exch. 306/SK Task Force, WA DNR
Lead

OCEANS
Oil Spill/Trans. X x FY 90 Shared Resource
309 1989 State Leg.
Proposals Pending Fed.
Legislation

Minimum Standards x x Develop New
for OCS Oil & Gas Info. Coll. Standards; Laychak
Exploration & Dev. & Sharing FY 89 fisheries
mitigation 309
project

Consistency Process AK x Regional Directory
would help

State Capacity x Info. Coll.
(T.S., EEZ. & New & Sharing
Fed. Initiatives) Inst. Develop.

HAZARDS x

SHORELANDS x

Ut 00 OW I* /-QJJL@ 411jU UW '09 00 90

No so 00 aw as too M@ 4wr mm" an *0 a* im", W@ as M,

TABLE 3
REGIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS (numbered and dated In probable chronological sequence
for each subarea, with underlined numbers indicating key future west coast 309 program roles)

PLAN ELEMENT Research In Interstate Regional Ongoing Coordinated Federal- Interstate
Subarea Progress Information Workshop State Policy Interstate State Compact
COASTAL WETLANDS Exchange Development Management Coordination (309) Abbreviations
Delineatio Barnes (309) 1.1990 AK GOV; BCDC; CCC; 2. 1991 1992 AK Alaska
OR DSL; WA DOE AKSC Alaska Spill Commission
C California
Mitigation 1.1990 2.1991 AK GOV; BCDC; CCC: 1993 3. 1992 OR Oregon
CCCY; OR DSL; WA Washington
Techniques WA DOE B.C. British Columbia
Standards BCDC San Francisco Bay
Monitoring Conservation &
Enforcement Development Commission
CCC California Coastal Commission
WATER QUALITY OR/WA CCCY California Coastal Conservancy
Col. R.? Col.R. Columbia River
NPS Hershman (309); OR DEO; WA 1. 1991 CSO Coastal States Organization
Wolniakowski DOE; CWOCB CZM Coastal Zone Management
DEO Department of Environmental
MARPOL 1. 1990 WA DOE; OR 2. 1991 Quality
DOE Department of Ecology
COASTAL HAZARDS Griggs; Good; 1994: 2. 1993 BCDC;CCC;CCCY; 1. 1992 DOEN Department of Energy
Hershman; Atlas WA DOE; OR DLCD, DLCD Department of Land
Peterson; DOEN Conservation & Development
Komar DNR Department of Natural
Resources
SHORELAND USE 1. 1992 AK; WA DNR DSL Division of.State Lands
ALLOCATIONS EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
GOV Governor
OCEAN WATERS -L. 1991 AK DNR; CCC; CSLC; 2. 1991; NPS Non-point Source
CSEA; S.B. County; w/B.C.? S.B. Santa Barbara
OR DLCD, DSL; 11/89 WLC SEA Secretary of Environmental
WA DOE Resolution Affairs
SLC State Land Commission
Oil Soill/Transportation AKSC 2. 1992 1. 1991 T.S. Territorial Sea
WGA Western Governors Ass'n
Offshore Oil Minimum Stds. Laychak (309) WLC Western Legislative Conf.
State Capacity (T.S., EE Cicln-Sain; WQCB Water Quality Control Board
Hershman; Hildreth;
Knecht; WGA, CSO

OTHER REGIONAL 1. 1991: Regional
COORDINATION CZM Personnel
Directory

High priority and immediate attention should be given to
wetlands mitigation in the regional interstate CZM plan.
Federal agency policies and practices regarding wetlands
mitigation vary widely. A recent National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) survey found that the respective roles of NMFS,
OCRM, and state CZM programs in avoiding or mitigating
wetlands habitat losses were poorly defined and recommended
specific improvements including regional mitigation project
follow-up systems. The states, and in some cases sub-state
entities, have developed their own approac hes to wetland
mitigation.

In a sense this may be healthy because a new and
difficult management concept such as wetlands mitigation
requires experimentation. A courageous but risky experiment
can be tried by one governmental unit without exposing all to
the same risk. The best practices that emerge from the
"experiments" can be copied and the failures avoided.

The down side of experimentation is confusion about
standards, and inefficiency due to redundant or conflicting
standards. In a federal system where a single project
requires review at three or more levels of government, the
overlaps and conflicts can be a serious problem for the
project proponent, the regulators, and the interested public.

A complicating factor is that the experimentation is
occurring at a time of intense political and public pressure
to protect a dwindling resource. Numerous official studies,
media specials, and resource protection campaigns have
successfully created a national movement and transformed the
nation's perceptions about the importance of wetlands. This
political and moral pressure creates a sense of urgency that
spurs official action even though standards are unclear and
still developing. On the west coast, important species of
migratory birds use wetlands in all four states. This makes
wetlands management a truly regional issue. Furthermore,
throughout the region the historical loss of wetlands on
public and private lands has been documented and accepted
politically.

For all of the above reasons a conscious effort to
compare wetland mitigation policies and practice among the
four west coast states and the regional offices of key federal
agencies would make sense. It could lead to better
understanding of the "why" and "how" of the approach of
others. With this information in hand, discussion can proceed
about streamlining procedures, reconciling conflicting
policies, and perhaps even standardization.

Four issues of wetland mitigation received the most
discussion: the emerging no-net loss policy--what it means and

how it might be achieved; the need for mitigation standards,
long-term monitoring of performance, and enforcement; the
@echnologies of wetland restoration and creation and recent
improvements and success/failure research; and the legal and
administrative aspects of establishing mitigation banks.
These issues are more often joined than separated, suggesting
that the topic for regional review remain "wetlands
mitigation" rather than one of the listed sub-issues.

The vehicle for regional attention to this issue could be
a structured workshop preceded by information collection and
dissemination about diverse approaches to the issues. Since
regional offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Army Corps of Engineers, and Soil Conservation Service are
vitally concerned with wetlands, their participation and
collaboration are warranted. And certain developers with
ongoing wetland concerns, such as port agencies or other
utilities, should be included. The Association of Wetlands
Managers (AWM), which holds meetings on all aspects of
wetland management, could assist in convening the workshop.
The workshop could be modeled upon the series of "no net
loss" workshops AWM is coordinating in other regions of the
country between November 1989 and May 1990. One objective of
a west coast workshop would be to evaluate best ways for
regional collaboration to continue in the future, and how it
might be supported.

The second wetlands issue that should receive high
priority and immediate attention is wetland identification and
delineation. A manual for wetlands identification and
delineation was published in January 1989 by four of the above
federal agencies, but its use and interpretation continues to
raise questions among wetland managers at all levels of
government. This issue is not as pervasive or as politically
potent as the wetlands mitigation issues discussed above, but
could benefit from deliberate attention at an appropriate
level of effort. This problem should be addressed by regional
coastal managers through collaboration with the federal
agencies that published the document. In addition, a fiscal
year 1989 309 project with Mark Barnes, Director of the
Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST), as Principal
Investigator will identify and map wetlands in and adjacent to
the Columbia River estuary and establish environmentally sound
wetland management strategies for the region.

Other wetland-related issues--delegation of federal Clean
Water Act section 404 authority to the states, dredged
material management, cumulative effects, and effects from sea
level rise--received lower priority and mid-term to long-term
ratings for 309 consideration. However, they should be
monitored by NCRI and the regional CZM board since changes in
priority may be warranted in the future.

B. COASTAL WATER QUALITY

Ever since the CZMA was first enacted in 1972,
administering officials have been uncertain about how far CZM
programs may go to control coastal water quality. On the one
hand, a key purpose of the CZMA is to control land and water
uses to protect important coastal resources, including marine
resources. On the other hand, the federal law specified that
CZM programs were to incorporate the water quality control
provisions of existing federal law, the-Cl-ean Water Act (CWA),
and the state and local laws enacted pursuant to the CWA.
State coastal programs have responded in varying ways to the
problems of coastal water quality. Some states have actively
used the coastal program to develop shoreland use standards
that address non-point sources (Washington and South Carolina,
for example), while other states have done little in this
area, deferring to other agencies. Virtually all agree that
good shoreland use practices can contribute to better coastal
water quality and for that reason CZM can make important
contributions if conflicts and overlaps in agency
responsibilities can be resolved.

The problems of coastal water quality degradation have
received a great deal of attention in recent years. For this
reason there are now a number of bills in the 101st Congress
that would strengthen the nation's cleanup efforts. Most of
these bills include an enhanced role for CZM programs in water
quality improvement because degradation is linked closely with
non-traditional pollution sources--agricultural and urban
runoff, illegal dumping of wastes, airborne pollutants,
sedi'ments, turbulence, etc. The bills also would strengthen
EPA's new program activities dealing with estuaries, non-point
sources, and marine pollution.

High priority and immediate attention should be given to
exploring the best ways that CZM can contribute to water
quality improvement within the region. Marc Hershman's 1989
309 project will describe and characterize what is now being
done by CZM programs throughout the nation in non-point source
control and in estuary protection. This information can form
the basis for focused regional interaction on this issue.
Since three of the four states in the region are within EPA's
Region 10 (Oregon, Washington, Alaska), a logical approach
would be to encourage Region 10 EPA, state CZM, and state and
local water quality staff to jointly undertake this endeavor.
The 309 program could be a catalyst for bringing this group
together. If Congress does take action, the necessity for
this type of interaction will be high even though Alaska does
not view the non-point source issue as requiring immediate
attention. Such a regional effort on water quality would be a
useful model to follow when other opportunities to pool

federal and state coastal management resources and expertise
appear in the region.

In addition, one of three state pilot projects funded
under EPA's Near Coastal Waters Initiative is an "Action Plan
for Oregon Estuary and ocean Waters" managed by Krystyna
Wolniakowski of the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. The methodology for improving coastal water quality
developed by that project should be reviewed by the 309
program for use on a regional basis.

The implementation of Annex V of the MARPOL Convention
prohibiting at-sea disposal of plastics and garbage offers a
regional opportunity as well. Vessels move between the
harbors of different states and common approaches to the
handling of shipboard wastes in the ports may result in
efficiencies for the ports and more effective compliance by
vessels. The Saltonstall-Kennedy funded project to
demonstrate the Port of Newport, Oregon's successful waste
collection program in selected Alaska, Washington, and
California ports is a start at regional cooperation that could
be enhanced by the region's 309 program. Since MARPOL is
largely self enforcing, such coordination and information
dissemination efforts are critical to its success. All four
states need to integrate their MARPOL implementation into
their state's hazardous and solid waste planning processes.
Washington's Marine Plastic Debris Action Plan contains many
elements which could be included in a regional. plan to
implement Annex V. The public response to MARPOL-related
efforts such as beach debris clean ups and inventories
suggests there are positive political dividends for such 309
and CZM involvement with MARPOL.

A variety of other regional water quality issues were
identified in the instate meetings. These were noted as
important, but of a more limited and specific nature, and
therefore not as high priority as the first two.

Fish processing on vessels and pollutants from
aquaculture operations are becoming serious issues in water
quality. Because the vessels move between states, a common
approach to this problem by two or more states is suggested.
For example, practices aboard the factory trawler fleet that
works off Alaska but homeports in Washington, Oregon, or
California could be viewed as a regional problem.

Discharge of vessel ballast waters in harbors often
results in the introduction of non-indigenous species of fish
and aquatic plants. Some of these "foreign" or exotic species
compete successfully with local species and adversely affect
local fisheries, water quality, or esthetics. A regional,
national, or international approach is needed to understand

and manage this problem because of the mobility of the vessels
involved.

These and related water quality problems should be
monitored by NCRI and the regional CZM board. Specific action
may be warranted in the future.

C. COASTAL HAZARDS

1. Background

Coastal hazards management is an important national and
regional goal of coastal zone management programs.
"Management" of hazards involves a variety of strategies:
implementation of development controls and regulatory
standards; subsidized federal flood insurance; withdrawal of
federal subsidies for development in certain areas;
installation of major and minor engineering works; and
development of evacuation and post-disaster plans.

At the national level, coastal hazards management is
largely driven by issues on the east coast and gulf coasts,
areas with extensive barrier island systems, low-lying coastal
plains, subsiding coasts, and intense development pressures.
As a consequence, these states have been in the forefront in
developing innovative responses to coastal hazards, though not
without resistance and controversy.

The situation is different on the west coast. While
coastal hazards management has been important in all four
states, it is not as visible an issue as on the east and gulf
coasts. There are problems--major storms, attendant erosion
and property loss, landslides on cliffed shorelines, flooding
of low-lying valleys, and the threat and periodic occurrence
of earthquakes and tsunamis. The storm and erosion impacts of
periodic El Ninos, such as the one that occurred in 1982-83,
have also been well-documented.

However, because the west coast north of southern
California is relatively less developed than the east or gulf
coasts, coastal hazards cause relatively less property damage
and dislocation. Neither is there extensive low-lying
topography or relatively rapid subsidence here on the west
coast. On the contrary, much of the west coast and Alaska is
tectonically emerging, which to date has mitigated the effect
of global sea level rise.

These factors--relatively less development and the
geologic setting--tend to mask the increasing and cumulative
impacts of development in hazardous areas along the west
coast. The same factors also present west coast states with
the opportunity, at least in less developed areas, to get out

in front of hazard problems to establish effective,
coordinated management strategies.

2. important Hazard Issues

Coastal hazards were discussed at each of the four
instate meetings and at the regional workshop. For 309
funding purposes only, these issues were ranked low priority.
Most of the region's hazard issues are common problems, that
is, ones which each state is experiencing within its own
boundaries. Though no shared hazard issues were identified at
this time, potential exists for interstate issues within
shared littoral cells at the California-Oregon border and at
the mouth of the Columbia River (e.g., dredged material
management).

Coastal hazards issues on the west coast can be grouped
into three interrelated categories: the need for better
scientific information; the need for new and improved
@ftanagement strategies that respond to existing and emerging
issues, especially sea level rise; and the need for a more
uniform, coordinated response to federal initiatives.

In general, the knowledge base of physical coastal
processes in the Pacific region is primitive by comparison to
many other U.S. coastal areas. The region's continental
margin geology, estuarine circulation, nearshore physical
oceanography, and saltmarsh dynamics are fundamentally
different from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts where much
research has been performed. Thus, several specific issues
related to the scientific information base for management are
raised. First, a clear description of how coastal processes
affect each region and locale is needed by planners and
managers who must routinely evaluate development and shore
protection proposals. The Peterson 309 project listed in
TABLE 1 which is defining littoral cells in the Pacific
Northwest and sources of sand that make up the beaches there
is based on this expressed need. Second, management-oriented
information on the range and potential severity of shore
protection structure impacts is needed, along with methods to
apply that information at a given site. Finally, credible
scenarios for future sea level rise on the west coast are
needed, along with identification of vulnerable areas. A
regional atlas and accessible data base, with priority given
to vulnerable, developed areas may be one solution to this
information gap.

The need for model guidelines for managing development in
areas affected by coastal hazards, particularly sea level
rise, was noted by Washington and Oregon. The recent sea
level rise policies developed and being implemented by the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)

were cited as an example that might be emulated. BCDC is
already working to explain its guidelines to other interested
jurisdictions in California. Consultants for the Washington
Department of Ecology will be developing alternative policy
responses to sea level rise during the first half of 1990.
Also, a study at the University of Washington by Marc Hershman
and others is looking at what states and local governments
throughout the U.S. are doing to incorporate the sea level
rise issue into their management policies. Other studies
examining the effectiveness of shoreline management policy are
underway in both California (Gary Griggs, University of
California, Santa Cruz) and Oregon (James Good and Paul Komar,
Oregon State University). Each should provide additional
recommendations on this topic.

The needs for coordinated state responses to
Congressional initiatives and federal agency programs and
improved state capabilities for dealing with coastal hazard
issues was raised in Alaska and Oregon. Two issues in
particular were noted. First was the need for reconsideration
of the opportunity that the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
provides for minimizing development of undeveloped bay
barriers on the west coast and Alaska. West coast states have
expressed little interest to date in being included in the
coastal barrier system. Second was the need to work more
closely with Federal Emergency Management Administration
(FEMA), regarding erosion and flood management, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on shore protection, beach
nourishment opportunities, and other programs.

As noted above, coastal managers and others in the region
tended to'rank coastal hazards as low in priority for 309
funding. The consensus was that the next step should be a
regional workshop to develop a more detailed plan that would
identify priority regional problems and information needs and
funding sources to deal with them. There was also a strong
feeling that other mechanisms for communication and
information sharing on coastal hazards are needed as well.

D. SHORELAND USE ALLOCATIONS

1. Introduction

From the perspective of the region's 309 program,
shoreland use allocation issues appear to be of lower priority
than other common problems. There appear to be two major
reasons: shoreland allocation approaches and issues appear to
be influenced more by local and state interactions within
individual states, rather than by federal-state or interstate
interactions. This limits the commonality of shoreland use
allocation issues between states. Secondly, factors that
would normally influence shoreland use allocation were also

covered by other plan issues, specifically water quality,
wetlands, contiguous ocean resources (particularly commercial
fishing and resource extraction), and coastal hazards.

Shoreland use allocation issues that were discussed were
limited in number, and not usually common to all four states.
The most frequently raised issue was aquaculture/mariculture
facility siting (Oregon, Washington, and Alaska), followed by
public access (Oregon and Washington), and fishing industry
support facilities (Washington and California). Other issues
included port development, subsurface lands and water surface
management, dredge spoil disposal, changing settlement
patterns, and rural coast industrialization. The issue of
planning for use of tidelands and submerged lands emerged in
the regional workshop. Discussions of shoreland use
allocation often brought up the need for improved information
sharing and conflict resolution. Thus shoreland use
allocations is an area where the first step beyond this plan
probably should be a regional workshop to further identify
common problems in the four-state region and to discuss the
potential for regional approaches to them.

2. Regional Needg and Priorities

With a few exceptions, the regional workshop in Asilomar
reflected the relative lack of importance of shoreland use
allocation compared to other issues. The question was
initially raised whether the topic was more appropriate to
individual state 306 programs than the 309 program. After
further discussion, the following topics were addressed:
aquaculture, impacts from major development projects and from
natural disasters; information sharing systems; interagency
and intergovernmental conflicts; and planning for uses of
tidelands and submerged lands.

Needs regarding aquaculture include: development of
guidelines for siting net pen aquaculture facilities and
dealing with waste disposal, and evaluating the effectiveness
of existing aquaculture programs. These subjects might be
appropriate for information exchange supported by the region's
309 program.

Comparative studies of shoreland use conflicts would be
useful to the four states. A recent example with interstate
impacts is the siting a California prison facility near the
Oregon border. other needs include evaluating the impact of
major disasters or of major development on shorelands to
assess interagency planning and preparedness capability.

Institutional conflicts are common between agencies when
dealing with shoreland use allocation issues. These include
conflicts between state agencies and between state and local

government. Agencies more often face the need to respond to
immediate crises, rather than having the luxury to plan for
and allocate shoreland use in advance. Increased interagency
and intergovernmental information exchange in advance of
specific development proposals may help alleviate this
problem.

Planning for use of tidelands and submerged lands should
be integrated into onshore planning processes and involve
adjacent landowners (a sub-regional tidelands planning process
has been used in Southeast Alaska with moderate success).
This issue has a bearing on state capacity to manage resources
in the extended territorial sea, particularly if the federal
government is willing to share resource management
responsibilities in these waters. If so, developing
consistent regional approaches to planning for resources
development lands in the extended territorial sea, and
integrating such planning into onshore planning systems, could
become high priorities for support from the region's 309
program.

The highest priority appears to be development of a
methodology for a unified regional approach to planning for
submerged lands in the territorial sea, and the integration of
such planning into onshore planning systems. Of lower
priority are (1) evaluating the effectiveness of existing
aquaculture programs in the Pacific coast states and the need
for regional guidelines for siting net pen aquaculture
facilities and dealing with waste disposal from them; (2)
improving information sharing to reduce conflicts and
inconsistencies between agencies involved in shoreland use
allocation; and (3) assessing the current methods within the
region for resolving conflicts over shoreland use allocation.

E. CONTIGUOUS OCEAN WATERS

1. Introduction

The four west coast states are very concerned about how
adjacent portions of the Northeast Pacific Ocean are used.
All four states have imposed moratoriums on oil and gas
development in state waters extending 3 nautical miles
offshore. Recent events linking the four states in contiguous
ocean waters include the March 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and
litigation by the states challenging the Interior Department's
five-year schedule of oil and gas lease sales (see NRDC v.
Hodel, 865 F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The court ordered
Interior to prepare a supplemental EIS evaluating the
synergistic effects on migratory fish, birds, and marine
mammals of OCS oil and gas activities in the four-state
region. A fiscal year 1989 309 project with Eugenia Laychak
as Principal Investigator will focus on conflict resolution

between offshore activities (developing or disposing of
nonrenewable resources--oil and gas, marine minerals, and
ocean dumping) and commercial and recreational fisheries.

Of the four states, Alaska and California have had the
most extensive experience with management of ocean resources
in state and federal waters and beyond. In both states, a
number of policy innovations vis-a-vis ocean management have
been made. For example, in California, the California Coastal
Commission has established and implemented an oil
transportation policy with a preference for transportation by
pipeline rather than by tankers. The Secretary of
Environmental Affairs has initiated the practice of joint
federal, state, and local agency environmental review of oil
projects. California local governments also have been very
involved in attempting to affect the conduct of ocean
activities in the federal zone. Santa Barbara County, for
example, recently initiated a far-reaching program of
monitoring the socio-economic impacts of offshore oil
development. Local governments' control of onshore support
facilities gives them leverage in dealing with offshore
issues.

Washington and Oregon have less actual experience with
ocean resources management other than fisheries management,
but Oregon has been engaged in a unique anticipatory ocean
planning effort while Washington has emphasized research and
data gathering.

On December 27, 1988, President Reagan issued
Proclamation 5928 broadening the territorial sea of the United
States from 3 to 12 nautical miles in breadth. Several
efforts currently are underway to determine the interests of
coastal states in the 3 to 12 mile zone. The Western
Governors Association (WGA) and the Coastal States
Organization (CSO) are undertaking a survey of the coastal
states to determine the extent to which state officials wish
to pursue a greater state role in the expanded zone. In a
parallel effort funded by the Hawaii Office of State Planning,
Robert Knecht recently organized the preparation of six legal
and policy studies to explore the implications of the
territorial sea extension authored by Marc Hershman of the
University of Washington, Casey Jarman and Jon Van Dyke of
the University of Hawaii, Tim Eichenberg of the University of
Maine, Jeff Ballweber and Richard Hildreth of the University
of Oregon, Bruce Harlow, Rear Admiral USN (Ret.), and Robert
Knecht, University of Delaware. These studies identify
problems which should be addressed by the west coast 309
program in coordination with other regions. The SeaNet group
of Sea Grant funded legal programs is considering a
coordinated set of follow up studies to the WGA, CSO, and
Knecht efforts, to be followed by a national conference on the
extended territorial sea. 19

State ocean roles more generally will be reviewed by a
series of panels (including a panel devoted to the west coast)
organized by Richard Hildreth and Michael Orbach of East
Carolina University at the Coastal Society's October 1990
Conference in San Antonio, Texas.

A related 309 project "Improving State and Federal Ocean
Governance Capabilities in the Northeast Pacific" has produced
a detailed report by this project's investigators on enhancing
state and federal ocean management capabilities on the west
coast. Thus this project's plan focuses on specific priority
ocean problems derived from this project's questionnaires,
instate meetings, and regional workshop.

2. Regional Needs and Priorities

At the regional workshop several ocean issues were
identified as priority problems. on some of the problems,
immediate action seemed to be a possibility, while for others,
the first step would be additional information exchange and
workshops.

oil transportation -- Given that all four states have
enacted or introduced new oil transportation and spill
prevention and cleanup bills, there is potential for immediate
regional action here--including an interstate compact entered
pursuant to section 309 as discussed under section 309's
institutional role below. As a foundation for regional
action, the four states should appraise the results of current
MMS, Coast Guard, and industry studies of oil spill response
contingency plans, technology, and training.

Uniform regional minimum standards for offshore oil and
gas develoRment -- This also seems to be a candidate for
immediate regional action. For example, uniform treatment as
"areas of critical environmental concern" or similar status in
offshore oil decisionmaking would seem to be merited for
offshore rocks, reefs, and islands in state waters which
currently are included in the federal California Islands
Wildlife Sanctuary, Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge,
and similar management units in Washington and Alaska.

Offshore Mining -- At least three of the region's states
have potential for offshore hard mineral miniM. The economic
and environmental issues likely to arise are similar and thus
an appropriate subject for coordinated interstate management
responses under the 309 program.

MARPOL -- As discussed under coastal water quality above,
further information exchange as part of a regional
coordination strategy is the next step. consideration should
be given to a regional approach to management of plastic and

other wastes from fishing vessels since the fleets cross state
boundaries and enter many different ports in the region.
There may be opportunities for standardized facilities, signs,
etc. that improve efficiency and reduce costs.

State ocean management capacity -- Information exchange
in the form of a workshop is a first step here.

In addition, in comments on the draft plan, the Pacific
Fishery Management Council, which manages fisheries adjacent
to three of the four west coast states, identified research on
assemblage management for groundfish, several specific
allocation issues, and better coordination of the region's
salmon coded wire tagging programs as regional issues
important to it.
Thus the next step for the region's 309 program could be
a regional workshop to exchange collected information on these
and other shared problems in contiguous ocean areas, and to
discuss coordination mechanisms and institutional arrangements
for dealing with them between the four states and relevant
regional federal agencies. At this or succeeding workshops
protocols for regional interstate and intergovernmental
responses to shared regional problems in contiguous ocean
areas could be developed.

On the state legislative side, the Ocean Resources
Committee of the Western Legislative Conference (WLC) appears
to be providing an effective forum for legislators from the
four west coast states to interact on regional ocean policy
matters together with legislators from U.S. Pacific island
states and territories. At its November 1989 Annual Meeting
in Monterey, California, the WLC adopted a resolution
supporting a compact between Pacific coast states and British
Columbia to provide better planning for ocean resources which
are of regional concern and develop a coastwide oil spill
response plan. The Alaska Oil Spill Commission has made a
similar recommendation regardinq regional spill response in
its January 1990 report on the Exxon Valdez spill.

The Western Governors Association (WGA) periodically
takes a strong interest in regional ocean issues relevant to
the west coast 309 program as well. A specific recommendation
of this plan is that the WGA form an oceans Resources
Committee to meet and coordinate with the WLC committee.
Further support for this recommendation could be developed as
part of the workshop recommended above and followed up by NCRI
and the regional CZM board. Such coordination.with the
legislative branch is not unprecedented for the WGA, because
they already meet once a year with U.S. Senators from the
western states.

VI. REGIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

A. INFORMATION EXCHANGE

1. Introduction

The need for improvements in the interstate exchange of
information was a theme that surfaced continually during the
development of this regional coastal management plan. Access
to adequate information is a common problem among the states
and is crucial to developing a coordinated approach by the
four west coast states to regional coastal management issues.
One of the tasks of the plan is to identify what can be
gained by improving the exchange of information, the
appropriate role for the 309 program in facilitating this
exchange, and approaches to be considered.

The-goals of the 309 program are to provide support to
coastal states for cooperative interstate and regional efforts
in three areas: coordination of state coastal zone planning,
policies, and programs; study, planning, and implementation of
unified coastal zone policies; and establishment of a means to
identify, examine and resolve mutual marine and coastal zone
management problems. Improved information exchange could
accomplish several objectives that would benefit the regional
309 program and develop a regional approach to coastal
management: (1) increase coordination between west coast
states for identifying regional issues and developing a more
uniform approach to problem solving; (2) increase the utility
of information produced by the four west coast states that is
related to coastal management issues, and the likelihood of it
being applied by state coastal management agencies; and (3)
reduce duplication of studies and programs that have already
been developed or funding of unnecessary studies.

Section 15 CFR 932.3(c)(5) of the 309 regulations
specifically authorizes the use of 309 funds for the "holding
of workshops and similar, necessary meetings or conferences."
Nothing in OCRM's Spring 1989 309 Guidance document appears to
discourage the use of 309 funds for such workshops either.

The four states need to assess NOAA's new COMPAS (Coastal
Ocean Management, Planning & Assessment System) microcomputer
based system for state CZM managers against their information
needs. The system will run on Apple Macintosh computers using
Apple's Hypercard software. It is intended to provide access
to NOAA data on coastal water quality, fisheries, and
habitats. A COMPAS prototype has been developed for Texas
estuaries. NOAA will select a second coastal state to
participate in COMPAS's development during fiscal year 1990.

Also worthy of investigation are the potential west coast
roles of the Multi-State Fish and Wildlife Information Systems
project funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
project provides technical assistance to states interested in
implementing computerized fish and wildlife information
systems. All four west coast states have designated state
wildlife and marine agency contacts for the project. Oregon
will be implementing the project's Marine and Coastal
Information System during 1990.

The region's Past experience under the terminated
National Coastal Information Center (NCIC) concept also must
be kept in mind. Portions of the CZM library holdings
established under NCIC remain intact at the Columbia River
Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) offices in Astoria, Oregon and
at other locations in the region.

Questionnaire respondents, instate meeting participants,
and regional workshop participants indicated the types of
information that coastal states are interested in exchanging.
They covered a variety of topics that can be grouped into four
categories: (1) agency responsibilities regarding specific
coastal management issues and staff contacts; (2) management
process, regulations, and legislation; (3) research and
technical information; and (4) public information and
education. Project participants indicated that improved
information exchange includes increased public education on
coastal management issues.

Various mechanisms or formats that could be used for
improving information exchange were identified during the
course of the project: (1) data clearinghouses and
repositories; (2) public listings and exchange; (3) west coast
newsletters; (4) meeting, workshop, and conference formats;
(5) computer and electronic information system access; and (6)
directories of agency responsibilities and staff contacts.
The need for better exchange of information has several
ramifications for the role of 309 program and development of
an interstate 309 coastal management plan: (1) the role played
by NCRI and the 309 program regarding information exchange;
(2) the type of priorities set for funding 309 projects; (3)
the effect of information exchange on updating regional 309
plan issues; and (4) information exchange and coordination as
a required component of 309 projects.

2. Feasibility of Linking Geographic Information
Systems

There are two major types of computer systems that have a
potential to improve data exchange and coordination management
on interstate coastal management issues between states. The
first are Geographic Information Systems (GIS's), which are

used in a wide variety of ways to map and manipulate data
using a computer. The second are Electronic Mail Systems (E-
mail), which connect users through computers and allow them to
distribute messages to other users. E-mail systems appear to
be limited to communications between agencies within states,
and are not examined further as part of this plan.

Geographic Information Systems are in varying degrees of
use in all four states, at federal, state, and local
government and private industry levels. Geographic/mapped
information is digitized or otherwise entered into a computer
system, where it can be analyzed, manipulated (e.g., combining
overlays of specific attributes), printed out and updated. In
some cases GIS's are replacing standard cartographic or
engineering drafting functions for industry and agencies. The
uses to which GIS's are put also varies widely, and include:

land ownership, leases and uses

resource values such as fish and wildlife
populations and habitat, oil and gas, timber, and
minerals

physical environmental characteristics such as
soils, water quality, and oceanography

transportation and utility systems

subdivisions, zoning, and tax information

special applications such as oil spill mapping and
response.

GIS Use Characteristics. There are several
characteristics of GIS computer systems and their use that
affect the ability to access or exchange information. Each
system uses a combination of hardware and software to run the
GIS. Major hardware categori es include those which utilize
mainframe or mini-computers, and desktop systems, which may be
either PC or Macintosh-based. The type of software used and
compatibility with other software is more critical to
information sharing than the type of hardware; major software
types include ARC INFO, Intergraph, MOSS, and AutoCad. ARC
INFO appears to be the most commonly used system on the west
coast. It is easier to access or extract and reprocess
information from a GIS that uses compatible software. Some
translation systems are available but are cumbersome (G.
Dickerson, personal communication). The form of or options
for system output also affect the ability to transfer
information (e.g., tapes, floppy disks, downloading from a
modem).

The use characteristics of a GIS system include what
purposes it is being used for, what type or form of data is
being utilized (including scale and source), and how the GIS
is set up to enter, store, analyze, and output the data. This
information must be known in order to understand the utility
and feasibility of using GIS information from another system.
The nature, source, scale, and format of data entered into a
GIS system has been a critical factor in determining its
usefulness to multiple users. Historically, most GIS's have
been set up for specific data management or analysis tasks,
and do not necessarily make information dissemination or
coordination with other systems a major operating objective.
This is changing as systems aimed at multiple users are set up
and increased data sharing occurs among systems. Procedures
for use of a system must also be understood--fees and
processing arrangements, whether a remote query and data
transfer is possible, and how access is authorized, whether or
not the system operator must do a special run of the system to
produce the data required.

GIS-Systems within States. Federal, state, local
government and private GIS systems are in use in all four
states. This discussion focuses on systems or development
efforts that are applicable to coastal and ocean management
efforts.

Alagka. GIS systems are common in Alaska at local
(Anchorage, North Slope Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough),
state (Natural Resources, Fish and Game Environmental
Conservation), and federal government (U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, MMS)
levels and with private industry. ARC INFO is the most common
software used, and Alaskan systems are generally compatible
with each other (G. Dickerson, personal communication). Data
sharing is increasing between systems. Unlike in Oregon and
California, there has been little effort to develop a system
that is oriented towards ocean or coastal management, and
that is open to anyone who wishes to use it. However,
recently introduced legislation would allow public-access to
state systems for a fee for the service provided.

California. State agencies in California rely on the
Teale Data C er, which is a computer lab that provides GIS
and other computer services. The Teale Lab uses ARC INFO, and
translates data from other systems, provides data runs, and
support for other state GIS systems. The State Coastal
Commission has a demonstration project with the lab that
involves developing resources layers and constraint maps
related to offshore oil and gas projects in the Santa Barbara
Channel and nearby areas. The main objective of the
demonstration is to use the query process function for project
review. In the early 1980's, the state was mandated to

develop a coastal resource information center. A library and
computerized inventory has been finished, along with a limited
CAD function. However, funding limitations have delayed its
conversion to a GIS system. California has a state computer
mapping coordinating committee, and several regional groups
such as the Bay Area Automated Mapping Association. The size
of the state is a problem, with diverse user groups who have
different GIS and data needs that complicate coordination
between systems.

Oregon. GIS systems are also used at local, state (Fish
and Wildlife, Environmental Quality, and Parks), and federal
government levels for tasks such as monitoring fish catch,
classifying marine habitat, oil spill response applications,
and managing parklands. The GIS State Service Center has been
established funded by the Department of Energy. In addition,
the state Department of Land Conservation and Development is
in the process of developing an ambitious offshore GIS system
based on ARC INFO software. The intent is to serve the needs
of state and federal agencies, and eventually be able to link
with systems in Washington or other ARC INFO based systems.
After this system is more fully developed, the GIS system
could be expanded for onshore coverage. Oregon has a formal
GIS Development Plan which outlines who is responsible for
covering specific issues and providing specific data.

Washington. Several state agencies in Washington use GIS
systems, including the Departments of Natural Resources,
Wildife, Fisheries, Ecology, Energy and Social Demographics.
Most systems use ARC INFO on a variety of prime, pc, and work
station computers. Washington has a Geographic Information
Council that is trying to integrate GIS development across the
primary state agencies. There are several GIS joint projects
between state and federal agencies on resource specific
projects, such as hydrology and transportation facilities on
forested lands and federal-state hydropower planning. These
are still in the data development.stage. Access between
systems in different state agencies is considered to be good,
although there is little public access. With regard to
communication with other states, there are state
representatives on the Northwest Lands Information System
Group, which includes state and federal agencies, and a
Northwest Computer Aided Mapping Group. The Department of
Natural Resources also has used the Oregon GIS Service Center
for plotting results. The state Department of Ecology, the
coastal management agency in Washington, is in the pre-
conceptual states of developing an offshore GIS system,
primarily talking with other agencies.

Other Relevant Systems. Within NOAA, the National Ocean
Service Office of Strategic Assessment is developing a
Macintosh-based desktop GIS system that could be used by a

multitude of state and federal agencies for ocean management
programs. The compatibility of the system with ARC INFO and
other common software and determining an appropriate scale and
format of data are still issues to be resolved.

Oppgtunities for coordination and Information Sharing.
There is increasing sharing of information between systems
within states. California is attempting to develop computer
data bases that can be accessed by a wide variety of user
groups, Oregon has a formal program, and legislation has been
introduced in Alaska to allow more public access to
computerized information. However, discussions with GIS
program managers indicate that communication between program
managers in different states does not occur on a regular
basis. Again, the lack of need for coordination results from
the perception that most GIS programs are oriented towards
specific end uses and specific geographic areas. What does
take place occurs either at annual conferences and trade
shows, or through regional user groups organizations for
specific software such as ARC INFO. Major conferences are the
GIS/LIS fall conference (trade show and papers) and the Urban
and Regional Information Systems (URIS) conference. There
appear to be no formal directories of GIS systems within the
four states. It may be possible to obtain information on
existing GIS systems from major vendors of GIS software such
as ARC INFO (ESRI). Regional user group meetings and bulletin
boards exist for certain software users: ARC INFO has Alaskan,
Pacific Northwest, and California/Nevada/Hawaii regional user
groups.

Potential Interstate Coastal Management Users of GIS.
Because most GIS programs are oriented towards specific end
uses and specific geographic areas, some of the program
representatives contacted have questioned the need for
interstate coordination among GIS programs. The potential for
such coordination depends on the extent of shared and common
coastal management issues to which GIS could be applied. The
following topics represent-potential interstate uses of GIS
that should be explored:

mapping and analyzing data for a specific resource,
characteristic or management unit that crosses state
borders. Applications could include river basins,
estuaries, wetlands, and fisheries resources.

mapping and analyzing data to obtain a big regional
picture on specific resources, issues or
characteristics. Applications could include
wetlands (extent of and proposals for development
within), oceanography, and tracking oil spill
events.

increasing the role of state agencies in ocean
resource management.

standardizing data bases for management and
enforcement actions by regulatory agencies.

learning what other states are doing with GIS
systems (techniques, applications) that could be
applied elsewhere.

improving.information exchanges between agencies
within states.

3. other Regional Needs and Priorities

A major change required in the exchange of information is
to orient information exchange more towards management and
decisionmakers. Solving management problems is a real need.
Making information and technical data more management-oriented
would help alleviate one of the major problems with the 309
program as it currently exists; the failure to integrate 309
projects into agency operations. Regional workshop
participants felt that while useful information is out there,
easily obtainable data bases on technical information,
management approaches, and regulations are limited.
Identification of key contacts within state agencies for
specific programs would be useful in finding out what
information exists and increasing coordination with
counterparts in other state agencies.

Conferences/workshoRs -- The formats of most coastal
management conferences emphasize sharing research, and are not
aimed at reaching solutions to management problems.
Conferences such as Coastal Zone 189 do not meet this need,
and in addition, do not provide enough of a focus on regional
problems. Funding for sending staff to conferences is also a
problem, particularly when there is no specific objective to
the conference. Recommendations for making this mechanism
more useful for information exchange included (1) setting
specific agendas for problem solving; (2) tying workshops to
other regional meetings; (3) making regional workshops a
component of 309 funded projects; and (4) letting state agency
representatives fashion agendas in advance on rotating topics.

@Newsletters -- Newsletters are a potential means of
updating agency staff on developments in research,
regulations, and management approaches. Problems include who
would prepare them and whether 309 funding is an appropriate
source. There are existing newsletters from state agencies
that could be distributed to other states such as Washington
Department of Ecology's Coastal Currents.

306/309 Program Reports -- Another need is increasing the
utility of the reporting requirements of the 309 and 306
programs by increasing information sharing. Quarterly
reports by 309 project investigators could include findings as
they are being developed, rather than waiting until the final
report. Annual 306 programs from each state could be expanded
to include information on major research, regulatory, and
management accomplishments for the year and how 309 projects
were utilized if at all. This could include brief
bibliographies.

Directories -- A basic problem faced by agencies in
sharing information is finding out who are the appropriate
agencies and staff to contact in other states. There was
significant interest in preparing a directory of state and
federal agencies in the four states that would list program
responsibilities by issue and key agency contacts for each of
the programs. Agency staff want to be able to directly
contact the right person in another state and find out what
approaches to problems have been used. Our recommendations
below for an enhanced role for NCRI include treating this
directory need as a top priority.

Based on the foregoing, two regional information exchange
needs are judged to be of high priority: (1) increasing
capacity for interstate coastal management coordination by
developing a directory of federal and state agencies in the
Pacific coast states, including program responsibilities by
coastal management issue, key contacts, attorney-general
staff, and relevant academics; and (2) facilitating
information collection and sharing on research, regulations,
legislation, and management approaches for the following
topics: oil spill prevention and response; meeting the
requirements of MARPOL V; and minimum standards for
development of petroleum and mineral resources in coastal
ocean waters. Of medium regional priority are: (1)
evaluating modifications to the 309 investigator and 309 and
306 program annual reporting requirements to increase
information sharing on pertinent research, regulations,
legislation, and management approaches; (2) evaluating the
feasibility of establishing a regional CZM information
clearinghouse in light of past attempts to do this; and (3)
utilizing regional workshops or conferences to address
problems related to specific regional coastal management
issues, either separately or as a component of appropriate
projects.

B. SECTION 3091S INSTITUTIONAL ROLE

Section 309 can play an important role with respect to
regional institutional arrangements. In addition to modest
potential funding support, section 309 provides explicit legal

support and specific legal incentives for regional
coordination through interstate and intergovernmental
agreements and compacts. Section 309 provides advance
Congressional consent for two or more coastal states to enter
agreements or compacts for (1) developing and administering
coordinated coastal plans, policies, and programs, and (2)
establishing institutions or agencies for implementation of
such agreements or compacts.

Section 309 also requires representatives of the
Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, Transportation, and Energy,
the Environmental Protection Agency's Administrator, and the
Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality to participate
whenever federal-state consultation is requested by such an
institution or agency, whether it is a temporary or permanent
one. Furthermore, for interstate compacts created pursuant to
section 309, recent federal appellate court decisions in the
Pacific Northwest (which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
review) provide significant judicial support for interstate
compacts used in regional natural resources management such as
that which could occur under a 309 compact. In addition,
section 309's provision for advance Congressional consent to
interstate agreements and compacts can remove constitutional
doubts sometimes raised by the federal courts about interstate
arrangements which proceed without Congressional consent.

At its November 1989 Annual Meeting in Monterey,
California the Western Legislative Conference .(WLC) (which
includes Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington) adopted a
resolution supporting a compact concerning Pacific ocean
resources management including a regional oil spill response
plan between Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii,
Idaho, and the Province of British Columbia. The WLC's Ocean
Resources Committee will be meeting during the Spring of 1990
to follow up on the resolution. Dick Hildreth's 1989-91
Oregon Sea Grant project is exploring the legal aspects of
such regional approaches to ocean and coastal resource
management including the use of section 309 interstate
agreements and compacts.-

C. ENHANCED ROLE FOR NCRI AND THE REGIONAL CZM BOARD

The four-state west coast region has special qualities
(physical, socio-economic, legal, and institutional) that make
it different from other coastal regions in the country. NCRI
is centrally located in the region and through its role
administering 309 grants and coastal economic development
grants is developing a vast reservoir of experience with CZM
problems in the region. Aided by its regional CZM board, NCRI
should begin viewing itself as a regional CZM information and
coordination office. Three initial steps toward that role are
suggested as part of this plan: (1) supervision of the

preparation of a regional CZM directory with 309 funding
support as a four-state directory of CZM expertise modeled on
the existing directory compiled by the Washington Department
of Ecology; (2) continuation and expansion of the existing
practice at the annual regional CZM board meetings of
information collection and dissemination by the state 309
coordinators of developments and trends within the state's CZM
program; and (3) keeping this plan alive and current by
supervising the plan amendment process detailed below. This
shift in modug oRerandi by NCRI and the regional CZM board
would represent a cost-effective response to the consistent
requests from the four states at the instate meetings and
regional workshop for effective coordination and information
exchange on shared regional issues and common problems.

The regional personnel directory recommended above would
be organized by problem area and be broad in scope, e.g.,
attorney general staff and academics with experience in the
problem area would be included. The cost of compiling such a
directory is estimated to be between $5,000 and $10,000. The
directory would be updated annually through a process similar
to the plan amendment process described below. The directory
also would assist coordination and communication between CZM
agencies and relevant non-CZM agencies in each state. Several
commenters on the draft plan strongly supported such a
directory.

Marine academics, who have been.involved in past west
coast 309 projects, agree that there should be better
coordination between state and federal agencies and academic
researchers with respect to applied coastal research so that
agency needs can be matched with the quite strong academic
research capabilities in the region. In each of the four
states there are academic researchers interested in
contributing to better coastal resource management in the
region while bettering the education and research products of
their institutions. Thus the regional personnel directory, if
compiled as recommended, would include relevant academics and
their areas of-experience and expertise.

As indicated above, a major problem has been integrating
the results of 309-funded projects into the operations of
state CZM agencies and other relevant state and federal
agencies in the region. Typically, state 306 program staff
review proposed 309 projects about two years ahead of the time
when the project's results will be available. Getting 309
project results back to relevant state agency staff has been a
continuing problem. Therefore, NCRI and the regional CZM
board should encourage 309 project proposers to build as much
continuing information transfer into the proposed projects as
feasible, including, where necessary, regional meetings at the
project's front end to coordinate and guide the project by

identifying a critical path-through the project that will
deliver useful results in a timely fashion. The state 309
coordinators should be involved in these processes throughout
the project's life, but they bear special responsibility at
the project conclusion stage for follow-up within their
state's CZM agency and other relevant state and federal
agencies in the region.

The foregoing steps will be useful responses by the
region's 309 program to the regional need for CZM policy
coordination that was clearly identified at the instate
meetings and regional workshop. This need for regional policy
coordination arises in part from the fact that existing
national forums like the Coastal States Organization tend to
diffuse regional concerns in situations where distinct
regional features merit special consideration.

D. PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS

Once a year each state's 309 coordinator should convene a
workshop co-sponsored by the state's 306 program involving
state and regional federal agencies, relevant academic
institutions, and user and public interest groups analogous to
the "instate meetings" that were held to produce this plan.
Participants in this workshop would review current issues
relevant to both the state's 306 program and the region's 309
program and prepare a state assessment of the region's 309
program for the past year. Regarding the 309 program,
workshop participants would develop proposed amendments to
this plan for consideration by the regional CZM board at its
next annual meeting. At the annual regional CZM board
meeting, plan amendments developed at the individual state
workshops and other proposed amendments would be reviewed for
final adoption by the board. Adopted-amendments would be
implemented in the next funding cycle of the 309 program.

VII. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR REGIONAL PLANNING

A. STATE OF THE REGION'S COASTAL ZONE: NATURAL
RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AND DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES

1. Introduction

This section of the plan briefly inventories the natural
resources contained in the onshore portions of the Northeast
Pacific coastal zones, highlighting wherever possible the
current development activities associated with those
resources. A similar overview for offshore resources and
activities in state and federal waters is contained in the
related 309 project report "Improving State and Federal Ocean

Governance Capabil ities in the Northeast Pacific."
Additionally, the section discusses several other significant
activities and uses occurring along each state's coastline.
Finally, it presents a general overview of each state's
coastal zone environmental quality.

With Alaska excluded, the West Coast is second only to
the Northeast in amounts of urban land, people, and population
density (Ringold & Clark 1981). Despite that statistic, over
68 percent of its coastal lands remain significantly
undevelopedl (Id.). Broken down between ocean coastline and
tidal shoreline, the four states compare as follows:

Alaska coastline 6,640 tidal 33,904

California Coastline 1,100 tidal 3,427

Oregon coastline 296 tidal 1,410

Washington coastline 157 tidal 3,026

California's coastal zone extends 1,100 miles from the
Oregon border to the Mexican border. The state's 2,400 miles
of marine shorelines range from the steep, rocky headlands of
the north coast to the semi-arid coastal plains and terraces
in the south. More than 1,000 miles is ocean coastline backed
by cliffs and bluffs, cut across by narrow river valleys and
occasional expanses of sandy dunes and beaches. An additional
1,400 miles of shoreline border inland bays, estuaries,
lagoons, sloughs, and tidal creeks.

Oregon's coastal zone extends from the Washington border
in the north to California in the south, encompassing nearly
300 miles of coastline. For CZMA purposes, the state has
demarcated a coastal zone that reaches inland to the crest of
the Coast Range Mountains2. The zone varies from 8 to 45 miles
in width and includes.about five million acres or 7,800 square
miles of land area (12.4 percent of Oregon's 96,981 square
miles) (Pac. Basins 1978).-

1 Given the massive area of its coastline, and the
state's sparse population, including Alaska would skew the
statistic even more. The West Coast's major urban areas
center around natural ports of the region. The vast urban
areas surrounding San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
Seattle account for nearly 90 percent of the region's
population (DOC 1987).
2 The Umpqua and Roque River Basins and the Columbia
River all pierce the Coast Range, thus interrupting Oregon's
natural, geologic coastal zone border.

Washington designates its coastal zone by county (those
whose borders touch marine waters) rather than by drawing an
inland band. The state's coastal zone may be differentiated
by coastal terrain. Three of Washington's fifteen coastal
counties border along the Pacific Coast. The remaining twelve
coastal counties fall within the coastal zone because they
border Puget Sound.

Instead of by county, Alaska governs its immense coastal
zone through thirty-five coastal districts or burroughs. The
actual boundaries of its coastal zone were determined
according to biological and physical characteristics of the
state's coastal areas (DGC 1989). The coastal zone includes
all areas where uses and development activities may impact
Alaska's coastal waters and resources (Id.). As the state
considers anadromous fish a coastal resource, several
districts claim coastal zone boundaries that extend inland as
far as the anadromous fish run, in some cases, close to two
hundred miles.

The Pacific Coast's total coastline of 7,623 miles and
tidal shoreline of 40,298 miles represent about half of the
U.S. coastline of 13,334 miles and tidal shoreline of 91,154
miles (DOC 1975).

2. Natural Resources DevelORment

a. oil and Gas

(1) California

California's coastal zone, both onshore and offshore, has
yielded commercial quantities of oil and gas since the late
1800's. In 1987, onshore sources accounted for more than
eighty-five percent of the state's total production (Cal.
Coastal Comm. 1988).

By far, most oil and gas extraction in California's
coastal zone occurs through offshore and onshore drilling
operations in the Los Angeles/Ventura areas of southern
California. Shore-based tanker facilities, pipeline linkups,
processing facilities, and storage areas are additional upland
oil and gas activities. As of 1987, forty-eight such onshore
marine terminals were operating in southern California while
twenty-two facilities were producing in northern California
(Cal. Coastal Comm. 1988). Additionally, there are thirty-six
operable refineries in California.3

3 California ranks second in the U.S. in number of
refineries and also second in refining capability with 16
percent of the national refining capacity (Cal. Coastal Comm.
1988).

Principal onshore locations where oil and gas extraction
occurs include the foot of Rincon Mountain and areas near
Ventura and Port Hueme in Ventura County; El Segundo and the
San Pedro area in Los Angeles County; and in northern Orange
County at Huntington Beach.

(2) Oregon/Washington

Past exploratory drillings have located small commercial
quantities of oil and gas offshore Oregon and Washington.
However, other than the Mist natural gas field in coastal
Clatsop County, Oregon, no significant discoveries of oil or
gas have occurred in either state's onshore coastal zone. In
Washington, petroleum refining is an important industry. In
the state's northern region, major facilities operate both in
Anacortes and Ferndale, processing tanker-delivered Alaskan
oil.

(3) Alaska

Virtually all of Alaska's current on-shore oil and gas
production takes place in two areas, Cook Inlet and the North
Slope. Both are within the state's coastal zone.

Located in south central Alaska, near Anchorage, the Cook
Inlet fields have been producing large quantities of oil and
gas since the 19501s. Production facilities operate primarily
on state and native corporation lands, although there are
also some producing federal fields. 'Although the fields
should continue producing commercial quantities through the
19901s, the Cook Inlet production is currently decreasing
relative to previous totals. That decrease is projected to
accelerate significantly during the 19901s.4

In contrast to the substantial depletion of the Cook
Inlet fields, the huge oil deposits located on the North
-Slope, fields which supply the bulk of onshore oil to the
Alaskan pipeline, could support large-scale commercial
production well into the twenty-first century. Currently, all
North Slope production onshore takes place on state or native
corporation lands, with major fields located near the Prudhoe
Bay area.

4 For further discussion concerning the projected
decreases in oil production from Cook Inlet, see the related
309 project report "Improving State and federal ocean
Governance Capabilities in the Northeast Pacific."

Alaska's state five-year oil and gas lease sale plan,
which has been suspended for fiscal year 1990, includes the
following proposed upland lease sales:

1. Lease sale #75, Kuparuk Uplands, is scheduled for
September 1992. The sale contains 421,000 onshore acres along
the North Slope.

2. Lease sale #70A, Kuparuk Uplands Exempt, is
scheduled for September 1990.

3. Lease sale #57, North Slope Foot hills, is scheduled
for September 1993. The five-year plan calls for the lease of
1.5 million acres of uplands in the foothills of the Brooks
Range.

4. Lease sale #64, Kavik, is scheduled for May 1991.
The state is planning to lease 771,800 acres on the North
Slope's coastal plain.

5. Lease sale #61, White Hills, is scheduled for
January 1992. The plan lease area contains 875,000 acres of
uplands adjacent to the Kuparuk oil field in the North Slope.

b. Coastal Mineral Development

(1) California

Although insignificant compared to the level of petroleum
development, some commercial mineral extraction occurs in
California's coastal zone. In the northern counties, mining
operations extract small quantities of metals, salt, feldspar,
and dolomite. Sand and gravel is the only non-petroleum
mineral produced in commercially significant quantities (DOI
1981). Mining companies work large gravel deposits along the
Eel River and the Russian River. Additionally, a large quarry
operation is located at Rockaway Beach. Near Monterey, sand
is quarried in the dunes, and there is also a quarry at
Majors.

Little mineral extraction other than oil and gas occurs
in the southern coastal counties.

(2) Oregon/Washington

As in California, sand and gravel extraction is the only
major commercial mining that occurs in the coastal zone of
either Oregon or Washington.

In Oregon, over 30 percent of the state's 1974 mineral
production of $30 million came from the coastal area. Sand
and gravel, stone, and nickel, however, comprise almost all of

that coastal mineral production. Known deposits of gold,
silver, mercury, silica, platinum, chromite, copper, titanium,
zirconium, and coal lie at various sites along the coast, but
quantities are thought to be small and of relatively low grade
(Pac. Basins 1978).

Historically, huge quantities of sand and gravel have
been produced from areas near Seattle and Tacoma. That
steady depletion and the increasing urban development in King
and Pierce counties, however, has decreased sand and gravel
resources to the point that companies and agencies now are
looking seriously towards potential sources along Washington's
coast, particularly offshore.

(3) Alaska

With the exception of petroleum, gold, and platinum,
large-scale mineral exploitation in Alaska's coastal zone has
not taken place.5 Although there are several known deposits
of minerals in many regions, high operating costs due to
inadequate transportation infrastructures and extreme climates
currently preclude their development.

By far, most current mining operations extract precious
metals, primarily gold. Besides small-scale placer mining,
which already takes place throughout the state, several major
lode mine operations in southeast Alaska near Juneau might
begin operation during the 1990's. Owners of the neighboring
mine properties at Kensington and Jualin, north of Juneau,
are awaiting completion of environmental impact statements
(EIS) before exploration to determine the mines' potential
gold reserves begins. Additionally, an EIS is being prepared
concerning plans to reopen the Alaska-Juneau Mine (A-i mine),
a facility in Juneau that prior to its closure during World
War II, was one of the world's largest underground gold
mines. other potential sources of precious metals include
operations near Greenscreek (lead, silver, zinc), and the
Apollo mine (gold) on Unga Island in the Aleutian Island
chain.

The mining industry also is interested in the diverse
geology of the Bristol Bay region which contains two known
areas of significant mineral deposits. The Alaska Range near
Lake Clark, and the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula from
the Kupreanof Peninsula to Wide Bay, contain substantial
deposits of copper, lead, zinc, silver, gold, and molybdenum
(Bristol Bay 1986). However, unless large concentrated
deposits are discovered, or the value of the minerals changes

5 The major gold mining takes place near Nome. miners
recently reactivated a platinum mine near Good News Bay.

drastically, the high cost of operation in this isolated
region will prevent large-scale mineral development (1d.).
Currently, placer mining is the only mineral extraction
practiced in the region. Miners own between 300 to 400
federal placer mining claims within the region (Id.). No
operation produces commercially significant amounts, however.

The region's only known major coal deposit occurs along
Chignik Bay and contains an estimated 300 million tons (1d.).
Although these beds have been worked in the past, current
prices and transportation costs prevent commercial extraction.

Further inland at the Red Dog Mine, production of lead,
zinc, and other minerals is scheduled to begin in 1990 at over
1 million metric tons of ore. The mine is located 87
kilometers from the Chukchi Sea coast 145 kilometers north of
Kotzebue. The seaport for the mine is located 17 kilometers
southeast of Kivalina. The port facility consists of a dock
and causeway 40 meters wide and 60 meters long that extends
into a water depth of 4 meters (DOI 1989).

Although several areas along the North Slope likely
contain vast coal deposits, they currently are inaccessible
either due to no transportation routes or because of
opposition to development from various political associations
or environmentalists.

c. - Coastal Timber

(1) California

Logging is the dominant industry in the northern
California coastal region. Most of the commercial logging
occurs in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Sonoma counties,
with Redwood and other conifers being the principal tree
species harvested.

No major forestry occurs in California's southern coastal
zone. Most of,the harvestable trees in the state's southern
region grow in or near Los Padres National Forest, an area
inland of the coastal boundaries.

(2) Oregon/Washington

Commercial forest comprises at least 70 percent of every
coastal county in Oregon (Pac. Basins at 14). The majority of
timberland has been logged or burned during the last 150
years, so few areas of old growth remain. The federal
government, through either the Forest Service or the Bureau of
Land Management, administers large portions of the upland
area, except in Tillamook and Clatsop Counties. The most

important forest type along the coast is Douglas fir, which
occupies about one-half the commercial forest area and is
prevalent in all but Clatsop and Tillamook counties, where
hemlock-spruce dominates (Id.). Sitka spruce runs the entire
length of the immediate coast, and up into the river valleys,
where Western red cedar, and Orford cedar become apparent (DOC
1977). On dune ridges and similar lands, Western hemlock,
Douglas fir, and red alder prevail.

The heavily forested areas of the north and central coast
give way in the extreme south to herb and shrub vegetation
along the immediate coast (Id.). In the mountains, Douglas
fir and tan oak dominate. other conifers such as sugar pine,
ponderosa pine, incense cedar, white pine, and evergreen
hardwoods are also found in quantity (Id.). Data from 1973
indicate that the coastal counties contain approximately 164
billion board feet of saw timber, mostly Douglas fir (Oregon
Coast 1985). National forests and other public lands account
for about two-thirds of that amount.

Of the more than 1.1 million acres of uplands within the
coastal zone managed by Washington's Department of Natural
Resources, nearly 80 percent is classified as productive
timber land. As in Oregon, the timber industry for most of
this century has provided the economic foundation for several
of Washington's coastal counties, including Grays Harbor,
Pacific, Clallam, and Jefferson. In recent years, a steady
attrition of small mills has occurred all-over the Northwest,
and the Washington coastal region has been no exception. As a
center for cedar shake and shingle making, which tends to be
done in extremely small operations, it probably has suffered
more than other places.

(3) Alaska

The southeastern and southcentral portions of Alaska's
coastal zone currently support a large-scale and burgeoning
commercial logging industry. Until the last decade,
southeastern Alaska (for this study, the area south of
Cordova) supplied the forestland for most of the commercial
logging in the state. The majority of the southeast's logging
and mill activity takes place in or near the huge forests of
the Tsongas National Forest. Two species, Sitka spruce and
Western hemlock, comprise the bulk of the coastal timber
harvest. Commercial quantities of both yellow and red cedar
also are harvested.

In recent years, logging activity in Alaska's
southcentral coastal zone has increased substantially,
especially in the area near Cook Inlet. A large portion of
that increase, and this also holds true for logging in
southeastern Alaska, is due to increased activity on private

lands, primarily the holdings of native corporations.6 The
logging industry in southcentral Alaska, especially inland of
the immediate coastal area, relies more heavily on hardwood
species, including Cottonwood and Birch.

Logging in Alaska's coastal zone will undoubtedly
continue through the 19901s, although frequent controversy
over access routes, often in the form of litigation between
environmentalists, industry, and government, may slow the
rapid pace of recent increases.

d. Estuaries and Wetlands

One of the most significant aspects of Pacific Coast
estuaries is their function as buffering and acclimation zones
for anadromous fish, notably salmon. For juvenile salmon
migrating to the oceans, estuaries provide food and a critical
acclimation zone where they become adjusted to oceanic
salinities. For adult salmon, estuaries are important staging
areas where fish migrating from the sea to spawn become
adjusted for the strenuous journey to their spawning grounds
far upstream. Excluding Alaska, the West Coast contains only
7.1 percent of the nation's coastal wetlands (Gosselin and
Baumann 1988).

(1) California

Prior to 1900, coastal wetlands in California (including
San Francisco Bay) covered about 381,000 acres (FWS 1979).
Only 105,000 acres remain today, that acreage allocated among
approximately 150 coastal wetlands. (Gates 1982).

The greatest reduction has taken place in Southern
California. There, over 75% of the coastal estuaries and
wetlands have been destroyed or severely altered by man since
1900 (Cal. Coastal Comm. 1975). Additionally, of the
remaining state coastal wetlands acreage, 62 percent has been
subjected to "severe damage," and 19 percent has received
moderate damage (Id.).7

6 The beginning of Alaska's modern history of natural
resource development may be pegged to passage by Congress of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA).
Among other things, ANCSA paved the way for the Alaskan
Pipeline, extinguished all Indian title, and granted Alaskan
Natives the right to select 44 million acres, which included
the large tracts of densely-forested land that is supplying a
major portion of the increases in logging on Alaska's private
lands.
7 Only 95,000 acres of California's coastal marshes
remain, of which, only 19 percent are relatively undisturbed.

Dredging and filling, primarily for agriculture and urban
development, has been a major cause of the destruction of much
of the wetlands and related areas in California. Of the
original 197,000 acres of marshes, mudflats, bays, lagoons,
sloughs and estuaries (excluding San Francisco Bay)-over 52%
have been destroyed by dredging and filling.

A 1980 survey undertaken by the Coastal conservancy
identified those wetland systems that had been artificially
impaired and required enhancement. About 44 percent of the
remnant coastal wetlands had been so severely disturbed and
impaired that they needed restoration. The criteria used to
select wetland areas where restoration is both possible and
desirable were based on the type and degree of artificial
alteration that affected the habitat including: reshaping of
coastal water basins by channelization and dredging for
harbors, ports, and marinas; diking of wetlands; filling of
wetlands; restriction of tidal flow by roads, railroad
crossings, channels or other structures in the wetland; water
pollution from point and non-point sources; accelerated
sedimentation; excessive human use of the wetland; and
degradation or loss of supporting upland vegetation (Gates
1982). (2) Oregon/Washington

Compared to other coastal-states, Oregon has very little
estuarine area. Its twenty-one major estuaries and fifteen
minor estuaries total approximately 133,000 acres, or roughly
12 percent of the state's coastal zone8 (DOC 1977). Recent
analysis of estuarine wetland losses found decreases of 50 to
80 percent or greater of intertidal marsh has occurred within
several Oregon estuaries (DEQ 1988). Diking for agricultural
purposes is the primary cause of estuarine wetland loss (1d.).
Most of the larger estuaries have been altered through
dredging, filling, or diking (DLCD 1987). Civilization has
yet to impact many of the smaller ones; they remain in a
natural state (Id.).

Development activity in Oregon estuaries has slowed
markedly since the passage of strict environmental protection
laws in the early 1970s (Good 1981). Estuary management plans
in the Pacific Northwest are largely preservation-oriented,
particularly with regard to remaining wetlands. In the
Columbia estuary, for example, only 110 of more than 42,000
wetland acres (0.3 percent) are designated for major
development projects (CREST 1979). Even in Coos Bay, the most

8 Except for the Columbia River estuary, all of Oregon's
estuaries (approximately 53,000 acres) could fit inside of
Grays Harbor estuary in Washington (approximately 58,000).

extensively developed estuary in Oregon, only 208 of
approximately 6200 remaining intertidal wetland acres (3.4
percent) are designated for development (Coos County 1982).
Oregon has specific mitigation requirements for developments
that impact intertidal flats or tidal marsh areas of
estuaries.

Development in and around each of Oregon's estuaries
varies, and, in large part, occurs on the scale permitted by
zoning law. Farm and forest lands, and state parks and other
open space lands make up the bulk of land-around estuaries.
Such lands comprise about 39,000 acres, or 76 percent of
estuarine shorelands (DLCD 1987). Lands zoned for more
intense development, including commercial, industrial, urban,
residential, and water-dependent uses, cover only about
12,2376 acres, or 24 percent (Id.).

Three estuaries have been significantly developed for
commerce and navigation. The Columbia River, Coos Bay, and
Yaquina Bay all support major port operations, facilities that
serve as vital economic trade links for the state.

Eight other estuaries have been developed less
intensively for commerce or navigation. These shallow-draft
estuaries maintain jetties and channels to support commercial
and recreational fishing, and boating, and some commerce and
related activities like boat building or fish processing.
Although less developed than the three deep-draft estuaries,
these smaller estuaries are nonetheless important to the
coastal economy.

Several other estuaries have towns along their shores,
but only limited estuarine alterations have occurred. These
estuaries support occasional recreational boating and fishing,
but mostly remain undeveloped. Some remain virtually
untouched by surrounding development.

Washington's Puget Sound has the largest estuarine
drainage area, largest estuarine water volume, and largest
estuarine water surface area in the country (DOC 1987). Ten
major rivers, fourteen minor rivers, and a great many small
streams flow into Puget Sound. Shoal areas are virtually
nonexistent and large tideflats and marshland areas are
restricted to mouths of the major rivers--the Skagit Bay,
Padilla Bay, and Samish Bay flats on the north and the
Nisqually River delta on the south are the most notable (DEP
1976). Small tideflats and marshes are found frequently in
the numerous inlets in South Puget Sound and Hood Canal.

From the Quinalt River south to the Columbia River, the
coastal lands are characterized by wide sandy beaches and
extensive dunes backed by grasslands and forests. Two major

estuaries occur in this region: Grays Harbor at the mouth of
the Chehalis River and Willapa Bay at the mouth of the Willapa
River. These two resources have served as a focus for
development and industry along the Pacific portion of
Washington's coastline, while providing important fish and
wildlife habitat also. The mudflats, marshes, eelgrass beds,
and waterways play an essential role in maintaining fish and
shellfish for both recreational and commercial value.

As with other coastal regions, large areas of
Washington's wetlands have been lost to development and
agriculture.9. Although the state Shoreline Management Act of
1971 restricts most activities in certain wetlands, the act
excludes normal farming and forestry practices, and does not
cover seventy-five percent of Washington's wetlands (Id.).
Activities exempt from the regulatory process are responsible
for the major share of wetlands losses.10 Additionally, and
unlike Oregon, Washington has no mandatory mitigation scheme,
although local planning policies often incorporate concern for
wetland loss (Good 1986). For example, in Grays Harbor, only
600 of 33,600 intertidal acres (1.88 percent) are subject to
new filling for development (Grays Harbor 1986).

(3) Alaska

As may be noted from the coastline statistics listed in
the introduction to section VII-A, Alaska contains over one-
third of the total tidal coastline of the United States. This
area supports a vast network of wetland and estuarine
environments. Because much of the coastline is still
virtually free of significant development, Alaska's coastal
wetlands are pristine relative to most in the lower three
Northeast Pacific states. Such waters provide irreplaceable
support for many of the state's marine and wildlife resources.

For example, the Bristol Bay region's extensive shoreline
contains hundreds of various size estuaries. The larger

9 Nearly seventy percent of the tidally influenced
emergent wetlands in Puget Sound have been lost to diking,
dredging, and filling. Core urban areas have lost ninety to
ninety-eight percent of their original wetlands (Environ. 2010).
10 As a recent report by Washington's Department of
Ecology notes:
The draining of wetlands, for example, is not
regulated, and consequently twice as much-acreage is lost to
draining as is lost to filling, an activity that is regulated.
The filling regulations, however, permit the filling of
wetlands of less than one acre, and the cumulative effect of
this exemption is a substantial loss of wetlands. (Environ. 2010).

estuaries include the river mouths and associated bays of the
Togiak, Nushagak, Knichak, Naknek, King, Salmon, Meshik, and
Chugik rivers. These estuaries provide vital rearing and
feeding ares for fish, waterfowl, seabirds, marine mammals,
shellfish, and other marine life. They are especially crucial.
to the salmon and char populations.

3. Other Uses

a. Coastal Urban Growth

(1) California

Presently, over two-thirds of the state's 27 million
residents live in two coastal urban centers--San Francisco and
Los Angeles Basin. Due to tremendous urban sprawl, few
undeveloped stretches of coast remain from Los Angeles
southward to San Diego. Estimates project nearly a 30 percent
increase in the state's population by the turn of the century.
If California's newcomers follow national projections, a
majority of those new residents will inhabit the coastal
regions.

(2) Oregon/Washington

In contrast to southern California, most of the Oregon
and Washington Pacific coastline is relatively undeveloped.
In 1980, the estimated population of Oregon's coastal zone was
178,296 or 23 persons per square mile, roughly 12 percent of
the state's total population (Oregon Coast 1985). Although
coastal population has doubled since 1950, the absolute
numbers are still small enough that no immediate threat of
severe development pressure exists. The largest city is Coos
Bay with a population of 13,829 (Id.). Forty percent of the
people of the coast reside in cities larger than 2,500 (Id.).

As of 1974, about 2.2 million people lived in the Puget
Sound area of Washington as compared with only 80,000 on the
state's Pacific Coast. The majority of the state's population
is concentrated in the central and southern region of Puget
Sound. By the year 2010, the state's population is projected
to grow from about 4.6 million to about 6 million, an increase
of 30 percent. Most of that increase--close to 90 percent--is
expected to take place in a dozen counties that border Puget
Sound; roughly 80 percent will occur in just five counties:
King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Kitsap (Environ. 2010).
The four coastal counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and
Snohomish contain over 57 percent of the total state
population as well as two of the states's larger metropolitan
areas, Seattle and Tacoma. From 1960 to 1970, these counties
experienced an overall increase of 28 percent with Snohomish
county achieving the fastest rate of growth at 54 percent.

Large gains were realized by the smaller suburban communities
surrounding the Seattle area, while metropolitan Seattle
experienced a 4.7 percent decline.

With the exception of a few favorable port sites, the
Olympic Peninsula and the Pacific Coast regions of Washington
are sparsely populated. In addition, the population rates are
far more stable.

(3) Alaska

other than Juneau, Valdez, and Anchorage, the only
developed areas throughout the Alaskan coastal zone are
unconnected small communities and villages. Except for some
commercial fishing, the dominant uses are subsistence-
oriented. b. Tourism and Recreation

(1) California

The California coast has long been associated with
coastal recreation and tourism. The types of recreational
activities vary largely with the terrain and weather patterns
along the state's 1,100 mile coastline, with greater emphasis
placed on actual water contact activities the further south
one heads.

Highway 101 serves as the main arterial over which
tourist and residents alike gain access to the coastal zone.
Tourism-related industries thrive all along its route.

In 1987, Californians spent over 500 million
"participation days" in coastal-related activities (U.S. Rec.
and Tourism 1988). These activates include an array of ocean
recreation uses; all generate significant revenue in addition
to their-recreation value. For example, in 1987, sources
estimated that the economic value from such activities as
follows: boating ($54 million), water-dependent activates ($96
million), and water-enhanced activities ($674 million) (Id.).
Further, coastal counties received an estimated $27 billion in
revenues from tourism (Id.). The majority of that figure was
ocean and coastal related.

(2) Oregon/Washington

Recreation and tourism in Oregon continue to expand with
a growing local and tourist population and increased leisure
time. Back packers and hikers use even the more isolated
areas along the coast. Ocean recreational and charter
fishing, especially for bottom fish, has increased
dramatically in the 1980s. In-water recreation, once limited

to a few, is growing as scuba diving, surfing, sail boarding,
and ocean kayaking gain popularity. Whale watching, almost
unknown ten years ago, fills many charter boats during the
winter months.

Key visitor centers in the state include the Hatfield
Marine Science Center, which draws over 300,000 people a year.

Over 2.25 million acres of land in the uplands is
publicly owned and available for recreational use; 56 percent.
of this area is in the Siuslaw and Siskiyou National Forests
(DOC 1977a). State forests comprise 26 percent and the BLM
controls 20 percent of the total (Id.). These opportunities
for public enjoyment of the uplands, coupled with the many
miles of publicly accessible beaches--make recreation one of
the key uses of the natural resources of Oregon's coastal
zone. The Washington coast also has spectacular natural
resources which attract tourists, miles of beaches--25 miles
on the Long Beach Peninsula alone--game fish, razor clams, and
Olympic National Park, to name a few. The importance of
outdoor recreation to the state is evidenced by Washington's
rank among all other states in several'visitation categories:
third in per capita visits to state park and recreation areas;
sixth in number of campers in national forests; and 14th in
number of visits to national parks. In 1988, the Olympic
National Park drew more visitors than any other national park
in the state,-3.36 million. The state estimates that in 1986,
travelers spent $108.8 million dollars in four coastal
counties (Strickland and Chasan 1989).

(3) Alaska

The Bristol Bay region's extraordinary fish and wild life
resources attract increasing numbers of fishermen, hunters,
boaters, and wildlife watchers form around the world. Sport
fishermen comprise about 95 percent of the guests of the
region's 50 or 60 lodges. Between 1977 and 1982, the number
of angler days fished increased dramatically from 36,337 to
66,738 (Id.).

C. Coastal Aquaculture/Mariculture

(1) California

In California, aquaculture is one of the oldest uses of
the coastal zone. Aquaculture began along the coast in the
mid-1800's with oyster and trout cultivation. By 1978, the
total sales volume reached about $17.5 million (AAC 1980).

Current aquaculture industry entails the production of
trout, trout eggs, salmon, oysters, oyster seed, clams,
mussels, abalone, and smaller items such as bait minnows,
ornamental fish, tubifex worms, and abalone seed (1d.). As of
June 1987, 28 commercial aquaculturists were registered with
the state Department of Fish and Game (Ld.).

(2) Oregon/Washington

.At present, very little mariculture takes place along the
Oregon coast. Thus far, Yaquina Bay oyster production is the
most successful attempt at mariculture. Investors have
expressed interest in the cultivation of abalone, sea
cucumbers, and other species near Port Orford. Some
commercial mussel growing occurs near the Umpqua River, but
none is actually taking place within the open ocean. The
dynamic ocean conditions of most of the coast, especially
during winter storms, will make any mariculture difficult and
highly specialized.

Unlike Oregon, Washington possesses a healthy and
develoRing (albeit small) aquaculture industry. In 1985, the
state's aquaculture production totaled 38.8 million pounds in
unprocessed whole weight for an estimated wholesale value of
$34.6 million (DTED 1987). Aquaculture represents one of the
few proved opportunities for sustainable long-term economic
growth in many of the state's distressed coastal communities

In order of value, Washington's major aquaculture crops
are oysters, salmon, clams, trout, and mussels. Nori
(seaweed), sturgeon, and geoduck culture, while not
commercially established in the state, demonstrate potential
to also become economically viable (Id.).

Washington aquaculture products are grown on tidelands,
by float-suspension in open water, or in ponds or land-based
tanks. The current aquaculture industry encompasses three
broad categories: shellfish, finfish, and eggs and juveniles.

For many years the only component of Washington
aquaculture, shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels) remains the
most important segment of the industry in terms of dollars and
volume of production. In 1985, shellfish revenues represented
69 percent of the state's aquaculture production (Id.).
Thirty-nine shellfish firms reported gross incomes in that
year, with eight of those companies controlling 86 percent of
total receipts (Wash. Rev. 19-85).

Oysters are the state's biggest aquaculture crop. During
1985, the state harvest ranked second in the nation, trailing
only Louisiana (Inveen). Willapa Bay in southwest Washington

contains the state's major oyster beds, accounting for about
50 percent of the statewide total. The remainder of the
state's oyster crop comes 'from Puget Sound, primarily along
the south Puget Sound shores of Thurston and Mason counties.

Clam production values about a quarter of that for
oysters. Although production has increased throughout the
1980s, sustaining that increase in the future seems unlikely
given a severe limits of suitable rearing grounds (Id.).
Virtually all of Washington's commercial clam production
occurs in Puget Sound. Like the oyster industry, most of the
commercial clam activity in Puget Sound occurs along the
southern shores. Small quantities of claims are harvested in
Willapa Bay also.

Mussel farming is a small but growing segment of
Washington aquaculture. Large-scale cultivation of mussels
began in Penn Cove off Whidbey Island in 1977. Production has
increased nearly 50 percent annually since that time.

Finfish farming, particularly salmon, promises to be the
greatest immediate growth area for Washington aquaculture
(Id.). Salmon are raised in net-pens on marine waters or in
freshwater rearing ponds or tanks. Only eight firms reported
income from finfish farming in 1985. A number of small or
part-time operations, firms earning levels exempt from
reporting, also exist. In 1985, Washington was the-nation's
largest producer of farmed salmon (Id.). One firm, which
maintains the world's largest single salmon ranch, produced
most of that total. Eleven smaller firms produced the
remainder.

(3) Alaska

Although small finfish farming operations have operated
in the past, oysters are the only mariculture product
currently harvested in significant commercial quantities in
Alaska. Despite its infant status as an industry in Alaska,
mariculture has sparked considerable debate in the state.
Concern by many over potential mariculture conflicts with
other uses has influenced state agencies to take an extremely
cautious approach to developing the new industry. In 1987,
the state legislature placed a moratorium on pen-reared
farming of finfish that is in effect until July 1, 1990 (DGC
1988). However, in contrast to finfish restrictions, other
legislation authorized collection of wild shellfish spat,
expanding mariculture opportunities to include Alaskan mussels
and scallops. In 1988, the legislature further expanded
mariculture opportunities by allowing development of sea
vegetable farms and hatcheries for shellfish and sea
vegetables.

d. Transportation/Navigation

On the Pacific Coast, total waterborne commerce has grown
at a faster rate than the national average, but looking at the
six largest Pacific seaports individually, the pattern of
cargo growth over the 15-year period 1965-1979 varies
considerably. In terms of total percentage change over this
period, the most striking growth occurred at Long Beach (127
percent) and Tacoma (100 percent). Tacoma, however, is one of
the smaller ports and specializes in low value-per-weight logs
and auto imports. Those ports experiencing moderate growth
were Los Angeles (65 percent), Oakland (40 percent), and
Seattle (33 percent). San Francisco, the smallest of the six
major West coast ports, declined by 60 percent. In 1979, the
value of trade passing through California customs districts
totaled an unprecedented $36.4 billion. Waterborne commerce
accounted for over 80 percent of that total (Friedheim and
Bowen 1980).

The area fringing the Gulf of Alaska contains the most
highly developed water transportation system in Alaska. All
major and larger secondary population centers are served by
either deep water freight or barge carriers. Deep water ports-
and ports which show potential for development into deep water
facilities are common except on the Bering Sea coast. The most
sophisticated and intensely used of the deep water ports is
Anchor-age, which is the state's transport hub. Its port is
ice free (except in unusually severe winters) and can
accommodate large containerized cargo shipments.

Other notable deep water ports are Valdez, Seward, Kenai,
Cordova, Haines, and Skagway. Additionally, Yakutat and
Kodiak have the natural attributes for a deep water facility,
but so far have not acquired the capital for development.

Deep water vessel traffic in the gulf has not reached
sufficient density to warrant extensively regulated shipping
lanes. Two areas of regulated water lanes, however, do exist.
In the southeast portion of Cook Inlet, a voluntary traffic
lane for commercial freighters has been established, a
response to repeated incidents of damage by passing freighters
of commercial fishing gear. The second controlled sea traffic
area is a required oil tanker lane extending from Valdez to
Cape Hichinbrook. Beyond the cape the tankers can proceed
without any course restrictions.

The Bering Sea is an area of light water traffic. The
adjacent coast is without a viable deep water facility. The
only deep water port is on the southern side of the Aleutian
Islands at Dutch Harbor. Nome, Dillingham, and Kotzebue are
the largest towns located on the Bering Sea; they are served

by lighter and barge vessels. The Bering Sea is ice free and
open to commercial water traffic for a period ranging from six
months in the southern areas to less than 100 days in the fax,
north. During winter, all traffic in this area moves by air.
Land connections between the Bering Sea and other regions do
not exist.

4. Coastal Environmentgl Quality

a. Coastal Erosion

(1) California

The California shoreline is diverse and varied,
consisting of sand beaches, eroding sculptured cliffs, and
stalwart outcroppings. The many geological faults result in
striking changes within short distances, and no single
formation extends for any great length of shoreline.

An estimated 86 percent of California's 1,100 mile
coastline (950 miles) is undergoing erosion, 125 miles of
which is critical and makes building unsafe (Neuwirth and
Mikkelsen 1987). Sections of the coastline having a
protective beach between the ocean and the uplands are less
susceptible to shoreline retreat than those directly exposed
to wave forces. This natural protection is also one of the
State's most valuable recreational resources, particularly in
the Southern California metropolitan areas.

Generally, shoreline erosion is only a problem when it
conflicts with manmade developments or man's use of the
shoreline. Not surprisingly, then, few erosion problems exist
north of San Francisco Bay (DNOD 1977). South of Santa
Barbara, however, the shoreline has been extensively developed
and is heavily used for recreation on a year-round basis.
There are only a few reaches of the shoreline that have not
been developed for housing, industry, railroads, highways,.
harbors, military installations, or recreational facilities.

(2) Oregon/Washington

Although there have been many episodes of beach erosion
on the Oregon coast, some with significant property losses,
the problem in general in not as severe as in many coastal
areas (Komar and McDougal 1988).

The most dramatic erosion on the Oregon coast has
occurred on sand spits. Development of these spits has taken
place principally since the 19601s, so the associated erosion
problems have occurred in recent years. Major instances
during the late 1970s and early 1980s of sand-spit erosion
occurred at Siletz, Nestucca, and Alsea Spits (Id.).

Because of their glacial-till composition, the Puget
Sound bluffs are susceptible to fluvial and marine erosion and
can be serious slide hazards. Although the Sound is protected
from the direct influence of Pacific ocean weather, storm
conditions can create very turbulent and occasionally
destructive wave action. Without an awareness of the
tremendous energy contained in storm waves, the development of
shoreline resources can be hazardous and deleterious to the
resource characteristics which make Puget Sound beaches
attractive. Miles of physically unsuitable shorelines were
committed to residential and recreational subdivisions before
the recent upsurge of environmental analysis. Some areas have
already experienced slide loss and others are now known to be
hazardous to future development.

b. Coastal Water Quality

(1) California

Not surprisingly, California's coastal water quality
varies depending on which coastal area one examines. More
highly urbanized or industrialized sections have greater
problems maintaining their water quality. The California
coast receives several types of hazardous discharges,
including oil, bacterial and viral, organic, radioactive,
toxic and trace chemicals, excess nutrient, and thermal (Jones
and Stokes 1980).

The California Coastal Elan noted that "at least 130
waste disposal outfalls annually discharge 444 billion gallons
of domestic and industrial sewage that has received varying
degrees of treatment into california's wetlands, estuaries,
and coastal waters (Cal. Coastal Comm. 1975).

Inadvertent discharges of untreated or inadequately
treated wastewater have occurred and have necessitated
temporary closures of beaches and coastal recreation ares in
California (DOI 1981). The causes of the discharges range
from sewage treatment "upsets" and sewer line ruptures to
strikes by treatment plant workers (Id.). Additionally, heavy
rains and flooding have resulted in untreated water reaching
beaches and coastal areas.

The effects of wastewater discharges on coastal
recreation depends on the concentration, treatment, and flow
of the discharges. Untreated toxic chemical discharges in
sufficient quantity destroy fish and aquatic plant life and
render water contact recreation on nearby beaches hazardous to
humans. Commercial and sport fishing near beaches and piers
can be diminished significantly. However, barring
bioaccumulative pollutants, these effects may be temporal if

ocean currents and wave action dilute the toxicity. More
lasting damage occurs in estuaries where natural flushing is
limited. Wastewater problems are most severe in the larger
harbors: Humboldt, San Francisco, San Pedro, and San Diego
Bays.

Fossil-fired electrical generation power plants are
primary sources of thermal discharges along the California
coastline. Power plants sited on the coast typically rely on
seawater for once-through cooling, a process that results in
water that has been heated above ambient ocean conditions
being discharged into the ocean. Such thermal discharges
alter ecological conditions. Sudden changes in water
temperature, occurring when plower plants slow down or start
up, can have lethal effects on biological resources or put
certain organisms into shock.

As noted above, major sources of industrial wastewater
discharges are concentrated in the large harbors. Chronic
low-level pollution is emitted by pulp and paper products
manufacturing, chemical plants, metals manufacturing, and food
and kindred products processing. In Humboldt County, for
example, two pulp mills achieved notoriety in June 1989 by
earning nearby sections of the Pacific a spot on the federal
Environmental Protection Agency's list of the state's most
polluted waterways.11

Municipal sewage treatment plants are the largest point-
source polluters in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas.
Municipal wastewater treatment plants also contribute
significantly to the water pollution levels in the population
centers of the north coast (Crescent City, Eureka/Arcata, and
Fort Bragg), the central coast (Santa Cruz, Monterey/Carmel,
and Santa Barbara), and the south coast (Ventura, Oxnard, and
San Diego). Larger quantities of municipal wastewater
discharges likely will occur with increases in population,
housing construction, and household water use.

Along the central coast and increasingly along the north,
significant wastewater pollution results from agricultural
uses of pesticides and fertilizers. Water contamination from
livestock solid wastes are also a problem, especially in the
central-coastal zone where agriculture is a major industry.

11 The mills, one owned by Simpson, Incorporated, the
other, owned by Louisiana Pacific, discharge wastewater
containing low levels of dioxin and higher levels of several
other polychlorinated organics. Recreationists, especially
surfers, for years have complained that pollution from the
mills causes their skin and eyes to burn (Newsletter 1989).

(2) Oregon/Washington

Because the coastal regions of Oregon and Washington are
not densely populated nor heavily industrialized, their
estuaries are essentially unpolluted (DOI 1989). Exceptions
occur in those estuaries near areas with larger populations
and those associated with shipping activities (Columbia River,
Grays Harbor, Yaquina Bay, Humboldt Bay, and Puget Sound).
Man-made causes of localized water quality degradation include
logging activities, pulp mill wastes, domestic and industrial
discharges, dredging operations, and agricultural runoff.

Nonpoint sources, including animal waste and on-site
sewage disposal, account for most of the fecal coliform
bacteria in estuaries. Tidal flushing characteristics,
estuarine circulation patterns, and ocean upwelling are
factors that influence distribution of fecal coliform in a
bay.

According to a report recently completed by Washington
officials12, all 163 Pacific coast shoreline miles in the
state are fully supporting their beneficial uses.13 The
study assessed three-quarters of the state's estuaries,
finding 78 percent of the assessed waters fully support their
beneficial uses, 14 percent of the estuary waters are
threatened, and 8 percent are impaired (Environ. 2010).

Major water pollution problems exist in the heavily
industrialized areas and large population centers of Puget
Sound. Significant point source contributors of this
pollution include wastewater treatment plants, sewer overflows
and storm sewers, urban runoff, pulp and paper processors, oil
refineries, chemical manufacturers, aluminum mills, electric
utilities, and food processors.14

12 See Environment 201a.
13 As used in the state's water quality assessment, the
term "beneficial use" refers to the attainment of the Clean
Water Act goals of a water body being "fishable" and
"swimmable." "Impaired" means a water body that does not
support or only partially supports its beneficial uses.
"Threatened" water bodies currently meet Clean Water Act
goals, but are in danger from adjacent activities of slipping
into the "Impaired 9 category.
14 A number of planned activities may seriously affect
water quality in the near future. Such activities include:
(1) increased land development and recreational potential of
the Hood Canal and San Juan Island areas; (2) urban
development and the possibly large influx of people to the

Fifteen principal municipal dischargers are located in
Washington's coastal zone, while twenty-five major industrial.
dischargers fall into the coastal area. Eighteen of the
twenty-five are lumber or pulp mill related, which perhaps
pose the most serious threats. Pulp mill discharges contain
several categories of pollutants, including pathogens,
suspended solids, and toxic organics (Environ. 2010). These
pollutants contaminate fish and shellfish habitat. Many of
the toxic organics bioaccumulate in fish and shellfish, posing
a cancer risk to humans who consume the contaminated fish.

(3) Alaska

Despite the tragic contamination caused by the Exxon
Valdez disaster, water quality in Alaska generally is good.
Man-induced stresses, such as domestic sewage, industrial and
commercial wastes including fish processing wastes, forestry
waste, and waste or spillage from ships and small boats are
potential problems in developed harbors and settlements. A
waste disposal issue which recently has received special state
agency-attention is ocean and bay dumping of fish wastes from
fish processing facilities.

C. Coastal Air Quality

(1) California

Sources of coastal air pollution include automobile
emissions, industrial emissions, sewage treatment plants,
agriculture, and forestry. Noxious odors and smoke are the
principal air pollution deterrents to coastal recreation use.
North coast pulp mills emit such odors and smoke, at times,
strong enough to discourage recreational use in their
vicinityl5. Other heavy industrial uses, particularly those
that are petroleum-related, also may contribute noxious odors.
Southern California air quality has been adversely affected by
emissions from offshore oil operations.

Kitsap Peninsula associated with the operation of the Trident
Nuclear Submarine Base; (3) the heating of water in proposed
nuclear electric power plants with once-through cooling; (4)
the shipping of Alaskan oil through northern Puget Sound to
the refineries at Anacortes and the Ferndale-Cherry Point area
with the associated risk of oil spills; and (5) the continued
urban and industrial development in the South Sound area which
is already limited in its waste assimilating capacity by a low
flushing rate and relatively shallow depth.
15 The EPA recently listed two North Coast mills, see
footnote 5 supra and-accompanying text, as among the country's
205 most hazardous air polluters (Newsletter 1989).

(2) Oregon/Washington

Air pollution is not yet a significant problem along
Oregon's coastline. The state's most recent air pollution
inventory listed no nonattainment areas in the coastal zone.
Point sources that do emit pollutants include pulp and paper
mills near Astoria and Coos Bay, timber operations all along
the coast, automobiles along Highway 101, and various sources
related to what little urban development has occurred.

Due to the heavy concentrations of people and development
in the area, serious air quality problems persist in the Puget
Sound counties. Levels of carbon monoxide, chiefly caused by
automobiles, in Seattle and Tacoma exceed the national health-
based standards. Bellingham also suffers from significant
carbon monoxide pollution, albeit to a much lesser degree than
Seattle. Small particulates pollution--primarily from
woodstoves and other wood burning--is another significant
health concern. Expected increases in population may largely
nullify recent legislative efforts in Washington to control
air pollution.16

(3) Alaska

Air quality for the northern Gulf of Alaska is good to
excellent with all areas meeting federal air standards. Most
air quality problems in the gulf coastal zone are in Anchorage
and on Kodiak Island. Seasonal dust and carbon monoxide
problems exist in Anchorage.

5. References fog Section VII.A.

Boschken, H.L., "The Demands of Conflicting Change on Public
Enterprise: West Coast Seaport Development and
Environmental Regulation," Public Administration Review,
(May/June 1982).

Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area Board, Bristol Bay
Coastal Management Progra . Vol. 1, Resource Inventory,
2nd ed., p. 8, (May, 1986).

16 Washington recently promulgated a law regulating the
use of woodstoves that is arguably the most comprehensive in
the country. The law requires that stoves sold in the state
be certified as clean-burning, it restricts wood burning
during periods of impaired air quality (as determined by local
air pollution officials); and it requires that people burn
only properly-seasoned wood. The new state law--with its
focus on a large number of small sources and its reliance on
voluntary compliance by individuals--could become a model for
air pollution control in the 1990's.

California Aquaculture Development Act Aquaculture Advisory
Committee, Summary of a Study on the Status of
Acruaculture in California, p. 3, (1980) [hereinafter
AAC]. -

California Coastal Commission, Oil and Gas Activities
Affecting California's Coastal Zone: Summary Report, 2nd
ed., (December, 1988).

California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, California
Coastal Plan, (December, 1975).

Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST), Columbia River
Estuary Regional Management Plan, (June, 1979)
(hereinafter CREST 1979].

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, The Coastline of the United States (1975)
[hereinafter DOC 1975].

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, State
of Oregon Coastal Management Program: Final Environmental
Impact Statement, pp. 13, 23, (1977) (hereinafter DOC
1977].

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch, National
Estuarine Inventory: Land Use and the Nation's Estuaries,
p. 9, (March, 1987) (hereinafter DOC 1987].

Department of Environmental Quality, 1988 Water Quality Status
Assessment 305b Report, p. 10, (1988) (hereinafter DEQ
1988].

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pacific OCS
Office, Inventory and Evaluation of California Coastal
Recreation and Aesthetic Resources, POCS Technical Paper
no. 81-5, p. 11-109, (1981) (hereinafter DOI 1981].

Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Draft
Supplemental Environment Impact Statement, 5-Year Outer
'Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 1987-92
(1989) (hereinafter DOI 1989).

Department of Land Conservation and Development, The Oregon
EstuaM@ Plan Book, p. 3, (1987) [hereinafter DLCD 1987].

Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, Assessment and
Atlas of Shoreline Erosion Along the California Coast,
(1977) (hereinafter DNOD 1977].

Division of Governmental Coordination, Alaska Coastal
Management Program Annual Report, (1989) (hereinafter DGC
1989].

Division of Governmental Coordination, Alaska Coastal
Management Program Annual Report, (1988) (hereinafter DGC
1988].

Environment 2010, A Joint Project Between the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington
Department of Ecology (1989).

Friedheim, R.L. and Bowen, R.E., "California Impacts On World
ocean Decisions," Coastal Zone 180, v. 3, (1980).

Gates, S., "An Inventory of California Coastal Wetlands With A
Potential For Restoration and Enhancement," in Wetland
Restoration and Enhancement in California, California
Sea Grant College Program Report no. T-CSGCP-007, p. 12,
(December, 1982).

Good, J., "Mitigating Estuarine Development Impacts in the
Pacific Northwest: From Concept to Practice," Northwest
Environmental Journal, v. 3, no. 1, (1981).

Gosselink, J.G. and Baumann, R.H., "Wetland Inventories:
Wetland Loss Along the United States Coast," Zeitschrift
fur Geomo=hologie N.F. Suppl., v. 34, p. 173', (May,
1980).

Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Grays Harbor
Estuary Management Plan, (January, 1986).

Inveen, D., The Acruaculture Industry in Washington State: An
Economic Overvie , p. 1, (May, 1987).

Jones and Stokes Associates, Ecological Characterization of
the Central'and Northern California Coastal Recrion,
performed for National Coastal Ecosystems Team, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, (1980).

Komar, P.D. and McDougal W.G., "Coastal Erosion and
Engineering Structures: The Oregon Experience," Journal
of Coastal Research, Special Issue no. 4, p. 77, (1988).

A Leadership Agenda: State Mgnagement of Ocean Resources,
Report and Recommendation of the Ocean Resource
Committee, Western Legislative Conference, P. 6,
(January, 1988) [hereinafter Leadership Agenda].

Mikkelsen, T.H. and Neuwirth, D.B., Public Beaches: An Owner's
Manual, p. 56, (1987).

Newsletter, "Pulp Mills: More Dubious Achievements,"
Northcoast Environmental Center, v. 19, no. 6, P. 3,
(July 1989) (hereinafter Newsletter 1989].

"Oregon's Coastal Zone At A Glance," Oregon Coast, v. 4, no.
3, p. 44, (April/May, 1985) (hereinafter Oregon Coast].

Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission,- The Oregon Coast,
An Informational Report on the Water & Related Land
Resources, p. 15, (January, 1978) [hereinafter Pac.
Basins 1978].

Petrillo, J.E. and Grenell, eds., The Urban Edge: where the
City Meets the Sea, p. 1, (1985).

Strickland, R. and Chasan, D.J., Coastal Washington: A
Synthesis of Information, pp. 180-81, (1989).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Concept Plan for
Wintering Waterfowl Habitat Preservation: California
Coast. Rriority Category 6, (1979) [hereinafter FWS
1979].

Washington State Department of Revenue, unpublished data,
(1985). (hereinafter Wash. Rev. 1985].

B. STATE GOALS FOR CZM RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT, AND
PLANNING

1. Introduction

This section highlights ocean and coastal management
goals of state, federal, private industry, and academic
institution representatives on a state-by-state basis. These
goals are derived from this project's questionnaire survey,
instate meetings, regional workshop, and research by the
investigators. Current and projected 309 funding levels limit
significantly the ability of the regions 309 program to meet
these goals solely on its own. However, through the 309
program's funding of this plan, priority problems are
identified for attention under the 309 program, other relevant
programs, and for increased interstate coordination efforts in
the future. Within each state the goals are organized under
(1) Research; (2) Management; and (3) Planning.

2. Stgte-by-State SummaM@

a. Alaska

(1) Research

Water auality/Marine debris. Use remote sensing to
identify and monitor sources of non-point water pollution such
as urban and storm runoff and mining and timber operations.

Pilot project could monitor specific offshore or .
floodplain mining projects for a year to evaluate patterns of
sediment discharge.

Study potential habitat damage from marine discharge of
seafood processing plants, potential aquaculture operations,
bilge pumps and other vessels. Consider regulatory,
technological and public information options.

Develop community technology or a regional center to
recycle marine garbage, especially fishing nets.

Assess the nature, amounts and potential threats of
hazardous materials such as ammonia and chlorine being
transported on the ocean. Develop appropriate emergency
response guidelines.

Wetlands/Estuaries. Evaluate wetlands mitigation and
restoration techniques.

Aauaculture/Mariculture. Evaluate aquaculture and
mariculture permit and regulation requirements of other states
or countries. Develop regional regulations. Establish siting
criteria such as physical setting, gear and navigation
conflicts, upland use considerations, water quality and
aesthetics of aquaculture and mariculture projects. Study
aquaculture operations in other states and countries.

offshore oil and gas development. Assess West Coast
spill response capability, equipment, personnel and
contingency plans. Compare West Coast oil spill technology to
that available in other production areas such as the North Sea
and recommend ways to improve region's technology.

Assess the extent of regional marine oil pollution and
implications for vessel design changes (such as ballast water
systems and double bottoms), regulations, monitoring and
enforcement.

Mining. Investigate the use of hydrocyclones to
concentrate recoverable minerals, treat wastewater.

Evaluate regional mining mitigations and restoration
techniques,

(2) Management

Information shariDg. Create a regional data center or
information inventory for states to share experiences with and
solutions to common problems.

Conduct a short-term, regional personnel exchange between
state agencies or within different offices of federal agencies
to develop interstate, interagency emergency management and
response agreements, personnel training, and information
exchange.

Wetlands/Estuaries. Consider state and/or municipal
assumption of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
program.

Offshore oil and gas development. Develop regional
standards for oil and gas lease sales and transportation of
petroleum products regarding design, contingency planning,
response capability, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis
and state and community involvement in planning and
decisionmaking.

Develop joint federal and state compliance monitoring of
offshore oil and gas activity and petroleum transportation.

Regulate the clean up of abandoned oil and gas leases.

Evaluate regional marine traffic management.

Mining. Revise regulations for testing and maintaining
water quality, especially for offshore gold mining. Review
how other states regulate mining projects.

Appoint regional federal-state task force to clarify
jurisdiction over intertidal beach mining.

Hazards. Adopt regional approach to integrating national
erosion zone management standards into state coastal
management programs.

Classify West Coast coastal barrier islands and develop
regional approach to implementing the-federal Coastal Barriers
Resources Act.

Consider use of state or local entity to condemn
threatened structures.

Fisheries. Update fisheries management policies.

(3) Planning

Wetlands/Estuaries. Develop a regional strategy
responding to the federal "no net loss" policy for wetlands.

Establish a statewide wetlands task force of federal and
state agency officials, scientists, and industry and community
representatives to recommend a statewide plan for wetlands
identification and management.

Offshore oil and gas develoRment. Create a community oil
spill response model with equipment and training needs and
user fees for funding.

Develop regional strategy for state management of oil and
gas resources in territorial sea.

b. California

(1) Research

Animal gesearch. screen marine mammal (seals, sea lions)
tissue for toxic bioaccumulation.

Research die-off rates of indicator organisms and
pathogens under different conditions.

Quantify Norwalk virus.

water quality. Measure coliphage in storm drains and
investigate sources to determine the validity of its use as a
human specific indicator.

Develop cost-effective analytical techniques for dioxin.

Evaluate waste disposal options comprehensively (land,
water or air).

. Research carefully both the need for dredging navigation
channels and how to dispose of safe spoil.

Wetlands/Estuaries. Consider the benefits of coastal
wetlands for commercial fisheries. Consider the impact of
watershed problems in one state upon another.

Fisheries. Study feasibility of using older ports for
fishing needs.

(2) Management

Information sharing. Need interagency communication.
Legislators need to coordinate policies, be aware of conflicts
and avoid creating gaps in legislation.

Prepare a vehicle for communicating between states,
local, regional, state and federal elected officials and
agencies, the media, educational institutions and interest
groups.

Water guality/Marine debris. Coordinate research on
storm water systems with EPA. Educate the public on
controlling urban runoff.

Wetlands/Estuaries. Extend the coastal zone to include
whole watersheds and upland areas, not just wet areas.

Focus on restoration rather than protection.

Improve effectiveness of implementation of wetlands
protection laws.

offshore oil and gas development. Assess risks and
define response capabilities and limitations.

Determine who has or should have the authority in spill,
transportation situations.

Make available to other states information learned in
Alaska from the Valdez spill via forums, workshops and
bibliographies.

Fisheries. Assure renewability with proper management
and habitat protection.

(3) Planning

General policy formation. Use Local Coastal Plans.

Present current and future issues to the public for
informed public involvement.

Hold a joint hearing on policy formation.

Identify differences between local values and goals
regarding ocean priorities.

Encourage legislature, governor to articulate state
policies.

Identify someone in the executive branch to coordinate
state ocean management efforts. Allocate staff time to this
task. Create a work group that provides coordination,
suggests policy and program priorities.

Initiate similar federal effort to provide coordination
between states.

Conduct state and local workshops to keep local
government informed, respond to local concerns, and provide
technical assistance.

Develop a state ocean plan with goals, values, policy
statements and use as a basis for management.

Develop a Pacific Coast coordinating group.

oil and gas development. Develop West Coast oil spill
readiness plan.

Emphasize energy conservation efforts.

Maintain facilities for sport/commercial fishing.

Maintain public trust of commerce, navigation and
fisheries. Assure constant access to fishing resources.

Develop consistent state oversight, policies regarding
port development. Balance regional development to avoid
duplicative expenditures.

Preserve small family-oriented fishing businesses by
assuring these operations have a fair share of port
facilities, access to fishery resources and mitigation/
compensation measures developed to resolve oil and gas
development conflicts with the fishing industry.

Do not promote buying out of fisheries to resolve oil and
gas conflicts. Instead, replace and develop new gear,
markets, etc.

Develop new fishing industries (salmon and sea urchin
trade to Japan).

C. Oregon

(1) Research

Basic research. Mineral and living resource data, e.g.,,
inventories mandated by Goal 19.

Coastal and littoral processes.

Follow-up studies identified in 1988 MMS symposium.

Tectonics, seismicity, tsunami, subsidence.

Long-term wave climate/storm monitoring.

Deep ocean food web evaluation.

Impact of commercial harvest on food web.

Research in recreational fishery and marine mammal
programs.

Sea-level rise.

Micro-coastal surface water circulati on patterns.

Dredging/disposal effects.

Wetlands/Estuaries. Create coordinated framework for
coastal and estuarine studies.

Define critical habitats for important fish and shellfish
in estuaries.

Estuarine sediment dynamics and contamination.

Metal contaminant effects on biotic resources of
estuaries resulting from shore-based placer mineral processing
plants.

Understand development of coastal wetlands.

Salinity.and physical properties of estuaries.

offshore oil and gas development. Nearshore circulation
related to oil spills.

Monitor chronic effects and improve technology for air
quality and oil spill cleaning.

Air quality models of offshore to onshore from oil and
gas platforms.

(2) Management-

Specific management needs. Develop a permit process for
black sands.

Amend beach bill to require evaluation of effect of
coastal structures on physical processes, sand supply.

Review mitigation requirements for shallow subtidal.

Give state Department of Energy authority over energy-
related development like storage farms, off-loading.

Regulate, enforce and provide public information to
reduce marine debris and improve water quality.

General management needs. Establish communication
between related agencies.

Involve citizens in environmental monitoring and
inventory.

Consider coastal management implications of offshore
development.

Protect coastal wetlands and shoreline.

Expand existing energy facility siting process to include
coastal/offshore.

State must decide how to coordinate with federal agencies
on state, regional, and international laws and policies
affecting water quality and fisheries.

Co-manage EEZ resources and share resources with federal
government.

Implement ocean resources and marine debris plans.

Assist ports and marinas regarding recycling and
integrated waste management.

Create regional mechanism to coordinate state actions on
shared problems via Pacific Northwest Coastal Managers Assoc.;
OMNET; sectional meetings at coastal zone meetings.

Hold instate forums hosted by university marine resources
programs involving scientists, planners, agencies and
citizens. Forums would result in smaller delegation to
represent state at interstate planning conference retreat
organized by the university programs and rotated between the
states.

Establish coastal management council with federal, state,
industry, and public members.

(3) Planning

Oil response: address the who, what, where, and how much
questions; assure sufficient dollars for quick, well-planned
response; clarify state agency roles.

d. Washington

(1) Research

General research needs. Fill in gaps in assessment of
offshore resources.

Research habitat mitigation banking.

Research effects of outer continental shelf development
on nearshore waters and coastal management.

Map offshore resources and environmental monitoring
stations in inshore areas and harbors.

Research effects of seismic surveys.

Water and air guality/Marine debris. Research effects of
sublethal toxicity in estuaries and fisheries.

Research micro-coastal surface water circulation
patterns. Create air movement and air quality models for
offshore to onshore flow from oil and gas platforms.
Assess contribution of oceans to global warming.

(2) Management

General management needs. Expand proposed boundaries of
newly designated National Marine Sanctuary.

Create regional mechanism for Pacific Coast states to
coordinate actions on shared problems. Consider creating
Coastal Management Council of federal, state, industry and
public representatives to discuss specific issues at meetings.
Fisheries management should be excluded. Beware of too much
regionalization which won't be useful in different ocean and
coastal environments.

Wetlands/Estuaries. Coordinate with Oregon on scientific
research, management and planning concerning Columbia River
Estuary.

(3) Planning

Offshore oil and gas development. Oil spill legislation.

Oil spill contingency plan.

Develop a liquid fuels energy policy.

Ban oil development in state waters permanently.

Encourage petroleum exploration and development coupled
with environmental and impact mitigation planning.

Develop cost-effective environmental protection methods
that industry can afford for oil drilling in coastal zone.

Legislation. Amend Coastal Zone Management Act and OCSIA
to extend state ownership out to 12 nautical miles.

Increase enforcement capabilities for state and federal
regulatory agencies, especially regarding non-point source
pollution.

Integrate marine policies into land use legislation.

Adopt stable funding for conservation/environmental
programs.

Protect wetlands.

Pass a federal ocean policy to define state and federal
direction in ocean management.

3. Conclusion

Although the four west coast states have distinct and
diverse research, management and planning agendas, there are
some common objectives. Assessing oil spill response
capability and developing an oil spill contingency plan was a
critical research, planning, and management goal for
representatives in each of the four states. In addition,
representatives listed assessment and mapping of offshore
ocean resources as an important goal and the need for improved
interstate and interagency information sharing as an important
management goal. These common goals are reflected in several
elements of this project's regional plan above.

C. FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT TO
CZM

This plan identifies regional needs whose funding exceeds
the amounts currently available through the 309 program. Thus
other federal and state programs which can assist in meeting
those needs are reviewed in this section of the plan. This
section also helps avoid duplication and overlap with other
programs in the funding of 309 projects. As discussed further
in connection with information exchange, priority uses of 309
funds can include coordinating the flow of CZM information
generated by projects funded by other sources.

1. Minerals Management Service Environmental
Studies Program

a. History and Statutory Mandate

The Secretary of the Interior initiated the outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Environmental Studies Program in 1973
to investigate environmental features of the Gulf of Mexico.
In anticipation of the 1978 amendments to the OCS Lands Act of
1978 which would require procedures for environmental studies
implementation, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
commissioned an ad hoc advisory committee to prepare a
national studies design for continued nearshore and onshore
environmental studies. The committee's recommended "Study
Design for Resources Management: OCS Oil and Gas Development
and the Environment" was adopted by the Department of the
Interior (DOI) in April 1978. A major tenet of the study
design was that the OCS regional offices were capable of
coordinating federal, state, and local agencies and
scientific communities in order to identify regional issues
related to OCS minerals development (MMS, 1988).

The 1978 amendments to the OCS Lands Act provided the
first statutory mandate for environmental studies in support
of offshore minerals development (43 U.S.C. 1346). This
section of the Act requires studies to be commenced at least
six months prior to holding a lease sale in the OCS. The
purpose of the studies is to assess and manage environmental
impacts on the human, marine, and coastal environment of the
OCS and the coastal areas which may be affected by oil and gas
development in such areas. In addition, the program is
intended to provide a basis for monitoring of OCS operations
(43 C.F.R. 3301.7) with studies of the human, marine, and
coastal environment designed to provide time-series and data-
trend information.

Studies are directed at various scientific disciplines in
order to fully understand environmental impacts of oil and gas
development in the OCS. Study disciplines in the Pacific OCS
region include air quality; physical oceanography and
meteorology; fates, effects and chemistry; biology and
ecology; endangered species; social and economics; and program
support (MMS, 1988).

The MMS's branch of environmental studies in Washington,
D.C. provides overall management of the program nationwide.
Four OCS regional offices administer the program regionally.
Each regional office corresponds to four OCS areas: Alaska,
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific. MMS, through annual
agreements with the Department of Commerce's NOAA, uses NOAA's
OCS Environmental Assessment Program located in Anchorage to
administer a portion of the Alaska program (GAO, 1988).

b. From Issue Identification to the National
Studies List

Issues meriting environmental studies in the OCS and
subsequent study proposals to resolve those issues can be
identified through various channels: (1) OCS advisory groups;
(2) government agencies; (3) private companies or
organizations; and (4) private individuals. However, MMS
identifies most of the issues for itself. OCS Policy and
Scientific Advisory Committees, as well as regional technical
working groups, provide guidance to DOI concerning the program
(MMS, 1988). How well the program has achieved its goals is
currently being studied by the Committee to Review the OCS
Environmental Studies Program of the Board of Environmental
Studies and Toxicology of the National Research Council.

MMS translates issues into 11decisionmaker questions"
based upon the informational needs of the various steps in the
OCS decisionmaking process. The OCS Scientific Advisory
Committee translates 11decisionmaker questions" into "study
topics" through an analysis of -scientific and technical
feasibility and information availability by the OCS Scientific
Advisory Committee (MMS, 1988).

After MMS scientists make a preliminary review of
proposed study topics, MMS circulates pertinent study topics
to other federal agencies (USGG, FWS, NOAA, etc.) for critical
evaluations. Furthermore, MMS actively solicits reviews by
academic, state, and industry scientists. MMS uses ranking
criteria developed by the DOI and OMB to rank study needs.
Eventually, MMS compiles a national studies list of proposed
MMS study topics based upon "national studies criteria" (MMS,
1988).

The national studies list identifies program study needs
to be initiated in the next fiscal year as well as ongoing,
multi-year studies which require annual funding approval (GAO,
1988).

C. Funding

Congress grants MMS annual appropriations for the
Environmental Studies Program. As of 1988, the overall
national program budget has been $500 million throughout the
program's history (MMS, 1988). The funding level for the
fiscal year 1988 was $22.8 million, down from a high of $55.6
million in 1976. The decline in funding can be attributed to
several factors including reduced industry interest in the OCS
and a declining number of lease sales (GAO, 1988).

The Alaska program has received about 1/2 of the total
funds since fiscal year 1973 (GAO, 1988). The Pacific OCS has
received about $68 million since fiscal year 1973. The 1988
budget for active studies in the Pacific OCS region was $28
million (MMS, 1988). The estimated budget for the Alaska OCS
was $7.3 million in 1988 (GAO, 1988). In fiscal year 1989,
Alaska received approximately 32 percent of the funding while
the Pacific OCS region received about 31 percent. For fiscal.
year 1990 Alaska should receive approximately 26 percent and
the Pacific OCS about 29 percent.

The Draft Environmental Studies Plan for the Pacific OCS
covering FY 1991-92 includes a list of 46 proposed studies,
nine of which are continuations of currently funded studies
(MMS, 1989a). The Draft Alaska Regional Studies Plan for the
FY 1991-92 includes a list of 42 proposed studies, 20 of which
are continuations (MMS, 1989b). Funding levels will determine
which studies actually receive MMS funding.

A review of the most current lists of study topics
indicates that MMS funds a broad spectrum of marine and
coastal science projects, many of which address isolated and
specific issues relating to mineral development in the OCS.
Similar scientific studies that have been funded in the past
by 309 funds could be directed to the MMS environmental
studies program, leaving the limited 309 funds for interstate
coordination in the development of CZMP's.

However, some of the studies listed above are to some
degree germane to 309 because they address problems affecting
more than one state and directly involve coastal zone
management. Some of the continuing studies proposed for the
Pacific OCS that are relevant to 309 are discussed below:

1. A Summary and Database of Washington-Oregon Coastal
Ecology. This study attempts to compile a comprehensive
source of information on the existing environmental conditions
and marine resources of the Washington-Oregon coastal zone
that in the form of an accessible computer database and
mapping system, with a hard copy bibliography and
review/synthesis volume as an interim product. The sources of
the information compiled would be currently available papers,
reports, and raw data from state and federal agencies as well
as academic institutions.

2. Interannual Variability of Oceanographic Conditions
and Circulation Washington-Oregon Coast. The objectives of
this study are: (1) designing a database system; (2)
collecting the existing data and putting it into the system;
(3) using the system to characterize the year to year
variations in oceanographic conditions along the coasts of
Washington and Oregon.

3. Pacific OCS Marine Mammal and Seabird Database. This
study seeks to establish a central clearinghouse for current
information on the numbers and distribution of marine mammals
and seabirds in the Pacific OCS Region. The database would be
continually updated and be available to other researchers in
addition to MMS (MMS, 1989a).

New studies proposed to MMS for the Alaska OCS Region
that are relevant to 309 include:

4. Analysis of Social Change Influenced by OCS
Activities. The objective of this study is to analyze and
increase the utility of available data regarding the changes
in the human environment as a result of major federal action
in the OCS.

5. Risk PergeRtion of the Sociocultural Consequences of
the Alaskan OCS. This study seeks to investigate local
perceptions of the risks associated with major federal actions
in the OCS and document the changes in the human environment
as a result of federal OCS activities including the long term
consequences of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (MMS, 1989b).

These studies have been discussed for the purpose of
illustration and this list is not exhaustive. Other proposed
new studies that are contingent upon funding levels address
subjects that involve more than one state int he Northeast
Pacific Coast Region. These studies funded under the
environmental studies program will also help in the
coordination of interstate coastal zone management and provide
information important to more than one Pacific coast state.
Many of the studies proposed for the Alaska OCS Region involve
scientific studies of the effects of mineral development on
living resources of the Alaskan coastal zone. Also, the
Alaskan environmental studies program targets several issues
involving the fates and effects of oil spills and pollutant
transport in the marine areas off of Alaska. Much of 'what is
learned in these Alaskan studies may be applicable to
interstate coastal zone planning. However, these studies will
only be funded if sufficient funds are allocated to the
environmental studies program.

d. Relationship to 309 program

The Environmental Studies Program can sponsor major
offshore research projects relevant to state coastal managers
in the region which are beyond the funding capabilities of the
309 program. However, 309 projects can serve as pilot
projects for environmental studies projects. As a good
example of the interplay between 309 and other funding
programs, Starr's 1987 309 Fishery Resource Mapping project

listed in TABLE 1 led to a $400,000 follow up study funded by
the Pacific OCS Environmental Studies Program. Because all
projects proposed for funding by the environmental studies
program are not funded, meritorious projects meeting 309
program needs should be considered for scaled down funding
under the 309 program. Similarly, meritorious OCS-related 309
proposals which cannot be funded should be referred to the
environmental studies program.

2. Saltonstall-Kennedy Grants

a. Introduction and Statutory Mandate

The Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Act, 15 U.S.C. 713(c)(2)-
(c)(3), provides to the Secretary of Commerce up to 30 percent
of the gross receipts collected under the customs laws from
duties on fishery products for grants for research and
development projects (NOAA, 1989a).

S-K funds are available to assist persons in carrying out
research and development projects which address aspects of the
U.S. fishing industry. The funds are available for research
and development related to (but not limited to) harvesting,
processing and associated infrastructures. "Fishing industry"
includes both the commercial and recreational sections of U.S.
fisheries (NOAA, 1989a).

b. National Funding and Regional Funding
Priorities

There is no guarantee that funding will be available for
approved projects. However, NMFS estimated that about $4.4
million would be available for fiscal year 1989.

NMFS identifies funding priorities through consultation
with a wide cross section of the U.S. commercial and
recreational fishing industries, states, and fisheries
management councils. The priorities are identified on a
regional basis. Priority areas that will be targeted for
funding are those that would be beyond the scope of any single
entity within the fishing industry without assistance from the
government. Fisheries research and development should relate
to one or more of the priority areas in the Regional and
National sections (NOAA, 1989a).

Studies that have recently received S-K grants include:

1. Developing Recreational Fisheries in Northwest
Coastal Communities: An Information Base for Private and
Public Sector Strategies for Recreational Fishing Management
and Development.

2. Study of the Mortality of Hook and Line Caught
Salmon.

3. Processing Groundfish Carcass Waste into Fish Feed.

4. An InventoM@ of Vessel Stability for Smaller
Commercial Fishing Vessels.

5. Feasibility Study for a Gear Testing Facility.

6. Competitiveness of the Northwest Fishing Industry.

7. An Economic Analysis of the Pacific Salmon Industry:
Effects of Salmon Farming.

8. Offshore Pacific Whiting: A Parasite Study.

As the titles of these studies suggest, the most recent S-K
projects address various problems and needs of the fishing
industry. These S-K studies are valuable to coastal zone
management in the Northeast Pacific Coastal Zone because of
the importance of the fishing industry to the economies of the
states and the need to coordinate fisheries utilization and
management efforts.

The Alaska region has focused its research and
development efforts on the utilization.of Alaska groundfish
resources, stressing the development and application of
technology. Oregon and Washington compose the Northwest
region of the program. Research and development is to be
focused on fully utilizing groundfish found in the EEZ off of
Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. California is included in the
Southwest region, mainland. Fiscal year 1989 priorities
included test applications of new technologies for utilization
of salmon runs, testing new fishing gear, and developing
educational materials. Also, NMFS funded a number of national
projects applicable to a number of fisheries and regions
(NOAA, 1989b). Among other things, project descriptions must
list existing federal, state, or local government programs or
activities, including state Coastal Zone Management Plans,
that the project would affect and describe the relationship
between the project and these plans or activities (NOAA,
1989b). C. Cost Sharing Requirements

NMFS provides between 50-80% of the total project costs.
The non-Federal share may include funds received from private
sources or from state or local governments of the value of in-
kind contributions (noncash contributions provided by the
applicant or third parties). Federal funds may not be used to
meet the non-Federal share of matching funds except as
provided for by statute (NOAA, 1989b).

d. Relationship to 309 Program

S-K funds, though not substantial in relation to some
other programs, may be used for useful studies related to
fisheries development and utilization. Fisheries studies
undertaken with S-K funds can be useful to more than one of
Northeast Pacific States, as fisheries are frequently
interjurisdictional and utilization problems are frequently
common to similar sectors of the industry. If a very
important topic of common interest to more than one of the
states' fisheries or industries did not receive S-K funding,
it could be considered by NCRI and the regional CZM board.
Otherwise, fisheries development projects are not considered a
high priority for the region's 309 program.

3. NOAA Marine Sanctuary Progra

a. Introduction and Statutory Mandate

The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) is
administered by the Marine and Estuarine Management Division
of NOAA under its ocean and coastal management program. The
1984 amendments of the Marine Sanctuaries Act set out the
purposes and policies of the National Marine Sanctuary
Program, establish specific procedures and criteria for
designating sanctuaries and implementing the National program,
and provide for increased participation by Congress, the
Regional Fisheries Management Councils (when regulations on
fisheries activities are affected), and other affected
agencies or persons (NOAA, 1988b).

b. Purposes and Policies

Certain areas of marine environments possess
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research,
educational, or aesthetic qualities of special national
significance. (16 U.S.C. 1431). The NMSP provides for
comprehensive management and conservation of designated marine
sanctuaries, including the support and coordination of
scientific research involving the resources of marine
sanctuaries. The Program stresses efforts to enhance public
awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the
marine environment. It encourages public and private uses of
resources consistent with the Program's objective of
protecting unique resources (NOAA, 1988b). Generally,
decisions to designate areas as National Marine Sanctuaries
are based upon the area's national and historical resource and
human use values, the effects of present and future uses on
these values and the effect designation will have on these
uses, the adequacy of state and Federal management of the
area, whether designation will ensure comprehensive
management, the areas size and manageability, fiscal

compatibility, and public benefits (NOAA, 1988b). There
currently are 3 sanctuaries on the West Coast: Channel Islands
NMS, near Santa Barbara, California; Gulf of Farallones NMS,
northwest of San Francisco, and Cordell Bank, located west of
San Francisco. Proposed sanctuaries include Monterey Bay,
California, Washington State Nearshore in Puget Sound, and the
Western Washington Outer Coast. The FY 88 marine sanctuary
budget was $2.3 million, of which $1.6 million was for
projects, including management and researc h.

C. Relationship to 309

As discussed above, the National Marine Sanctuary
Designation process involves state and local government
entities and regional fisheries managers. Section 309 funds
could be directed at shared marine areas to identify
candidates for designation as well as studies in support of
designation. 309 funded research should be coordinated with
research in designated sanctuaries to avoid duplication.

4. NOAA Estuarine Reserve Research System

a. Authority and Background

The National Estuarine Reserve Research System (NERRS) is
also administered by the Marine and Estuarine Management
Division (MEMD) of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM) of NOAA. Section 315 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1461, establishes the NERRS
program and authorizes MEMD to make grants to any coastal
state or public or private person for the purposes of
supporting research and monitoring within the NERRS. NERRS
consists of selected estuarine areas of the U.S. which are
designated, preserved, and managed for research and
educational purposes. The sites are designed to be large
enough and protected well enough to ensure the effectiveness
as a conservation unit suitable for long-term research.

b. Established Estuarine Research Reserves,
Purposes and Priorities

Eighteen national estuarine research reserves have been
established, including four on the west coast: (1) Elkhorn
Slough, California; (2) Tijuana River, California; (3) South
Slough, Oregon (Coos Bay area); and (4) Padilla Bay,
Washington (NOAA, 1989b). None of these four is in an
interstate estuary.

Research funds are primarily awarded to support
management-related research that will enhance scientific
understanding of reserve environments, provide information
needed by reserve managers and coastal zone decisionmakers,

and improve public awareness of estuaries. Projects that will
benefit more than one reserve in the system are encouraged
(NOAA, 1989b). Five categories of research have been
identified as being a priority to all coastal areas of the
United States, including Alaska. These categories are: (1)
water management, including allocation of freshwater resources
and establishing the relationships between freshwater inflows
and fisheries productivity; (2) sediment management; (3)
nutrients and other chemical inputs; (4) coupling of primary
and secondary productivityi, and (5) estuar ine fishery habitat
requirements.(NOAA, 1989b).

C. Funding

Funding is available on a competitive basis to any state,
university, or qualified public or private individual to
conduct research within national estuarine reserves. Research
funds are normally awarded through a research grant (NOAA,
1989b). The approximate range of Federal funding per
successful project has been between $10,000 and $40,000; for
FY 1989, a cap of $50,000 Federal funding has been
established. Federal funds requested must be matched on an
equal basis by cash or the value of goods and services
directly benefitting the project in accordance with federal
funding requirements (NOAA, 1989b).

d. Relationship to 309

OCRM's Spring 309 Guidance document gives priority to
projects involving research in designated NERR's. Studies
addressing common problems should be the focus, and 309 funds
could be used to coordinate identification of common problems
that have not yet been addressed sufficiently such as some
water quality and nutrient cycling issues. Furthermore,
although the funding levels for individual studies are small
relative to other federal programs, estuarine studies carried
out under the NERRS program would be helpful to identify
informational needs in addition to providing data pursuant to
the studies. Those identified additional information needs
could be addressed by projects funded by 309.

5. CZMA Section 306

a. CZMP Requirements

Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to coastal
states so that coastal states may manage their federally-
approved coastal zone management plans (CZMP's). States are
required to match federal funds spent on their CZMP's on a 1:1
ratio. (16 U.S.C.A. 1455). State CZMP's must meet nine
performance standards, including protecting natural resources;

managing coastal development; giving priority consideration
for water dependent uses; providing public access;.assisting
the redevelopment of waterfronts and ports and preserving and
restoring historic, cultural, and aesthetic coastal features;
coordinating and simplifying governmental decisionmaking;
consulting and coordinating with federal agencies, providing
for the participation by the public and local governments in
coastal decisionmaking; and comprehensive planning,
conservation, and management for living marine resources,
including the siting of pollution control and aquaculture
facilities in the coastal zone. State CZMP's are periodically
reviewed and the Secretary may withhold funds and withdraw
federal approval if states fail to meet the national
standards. (16 U.S.C.A. 1458).

b. Relationship to 309

Through similar missions and common personnel, state 306
programs and the region's 309 program are closely linked. As
discussed above, state CZMP's are required to meet a number of
performance standards. Requirements that are particularly
relevant to 309 involve protection of resources that are not
located within a single state, including wetlands, estuaries,
beaches, dunes, and especially fish and wildlife, and their
habitats. Interstate coordination efforts under 309 could
help states protect these shared resources. Also, interstate
cooperation funded by 309 could help the states incorporate
region-wide goals and policies into individual state CZMP's.
Improved coordination between the west coast 306 programs and
the region's 309 program is discussed later in this plan.

6. Sea Grant

a. Introduction

The Program applies the intellect of U.S universities and
research institutions to the problems and opportunities
associated with the use of the oceans. The Program combines
research, education, and advisory services and represents a
partnership of government, university and industry. The Sea
Grant network is comprised of 29 core programs and encompasses
more than 300 universities and affiliated institutions
involved in Sea Grant projects. A emerging target area for
marine research under the Sea Grant program has been the
coastal ocean. Sea Grant has the capability to pursue five
areas of importance to understanding the coastal ocean:
sediment and shoreline stability, coastal ocean mineral
resources, fisheries recruitment prediction, impact of water
quality on coastal resources, and marine biotechnology.

Within the Oregon Sea Grant program for 1989-91, projects
by Dick Hildreth, Paul Komar, and Jim Good regarding state

ocean management, sea cliff erosion, and coastal erosion
management are especially relevant to the 309 program.

Sea Grant studies address numerous subjects of regional
importance. Many of the projects in the region address issues
facing the aquaculture industry and fisheries development.
Recent studies directed more specifically toward coastal zone
management and relevant to 309 include:

California

Management Models of Wetland Wastewat er Treatment
Systems. This study will analyze the use of wetlands as
wastewater treatment facilities with a goal of determining
optimal operation and management policies for such systems.

Wastewater Wetlands: Pulsed Discharges to Protect Coastal
Water Bodies. This project will seek ways of minimizing
salinity fluctuations in coastal wetlands used to treat
wastewater by releasing wastewater in pulses during outgoing
tides.

Deterring Oil Spills: Optimal Policies. This study is
aimed at determining the damage caused by oil spills and
analyzing current pollution control policy. Also, the study
will examine shipowner response to present regulations and
recommend new policies to deter spills. (California Sea
Grant, 1988).

Artificial Coastal Wetlands: How Well Do They Duplicate
Natural Ecosystem Functions? This project sought to determine
the ability of artificial salt marshes to duplicate the
functions of natural coastal wetlands. (California Sea Grant,
1988).

Orecron

Problems and Processes of Sea Cliff Erosion on the Oregon
Coast. This project will measure the long-term erosion rates
of sea cliffs in areas effecting coastal communities to assist
planning and development of coastal communities.

A Rational Analysis and Design Procedure for Rubble Mound
Coastal Structures. This project proposes to make reliable
estimates of wave-induced loads on coastal jetties,
breakwaters, and groins. These estimates will be used to
evaluate alternative materials for application to individual
coastal structures.

Siting of Marine Diffusers. This study will develop a
methodology to help decide the best and most feasible
locations of marine outfalls. (Oregon Sea Grant, 1989).

Washington

Managing Adaptively: Early E2Merience in Western North
America. This project will examine the adaptive management
processf i.e., a management process that treats implementation
as a series of experiments to probe uncertainties in the
behavior of resource populations. The study will focus on the
adaptive process as applied to Columbia River salmon by the
Northwest Power Planning Council. The study will compare the
effectiveness of the process to salmon management programs in
British Columbia and Washington state.

Models of Water Ouality Governance and the Puget Sound
Experience. The current water quality management plan
developed by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority has run
into difficulties in its implementation. This study will
examine alternative management methods for managing water
quality in Puget Sound. (Washington Sea Grant, 1989).

Alaska

Also, recent studies funded by Alaska Sea Grant have
addressed numerous issues facing fisheries managers and the
fishing industries. Some studies are particularly relevant to
the region, such as:

Economic AsRects-of the Allocation of Fisheries
Resources. This study analyzed methodological issues in the
valuation and allocation of fisheries between commercial and
recreational uses.

A Dynamic Simulation Model of the United States Pacific
Halibut Fishery. This study constructed an economic model of
the U.S. Pacific halibut fishery, which is designed to be
utilized by fisheries managers such as the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council and NMFS.

.Furthermore, Alaska Sea Grant funded a number of scientific
studies of the environmental effects of the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. These studies should prove to be valuable for regional
coastal managers to develop management practices that take
into account possible future oil spills that may affect the
coastal zone.

b. Funding

Since 1971, Congress has appropriated about $39 million
per year for Sea Grant. The FY 1987 budget was $37.3 million,
46% of which was slated for research. Congress appropriated
an additional $2 million over the FY-1989 budget for the
National Sea Grant College Program in 1990 (Nautilus, 1989b).

C. Relationship to 309

Sea Grant studies can address substantive categories that
would otherwise be studied with funding from 309 funds, as
they have been in the past. Wherever possible, research
projects that address shared interstate resources and regional
common problems should be pursued through the Sea Grant
Program rather with 309 funds.

7. National Coastal Research Institute

a. Background

The National Coastal Resources Research and Development
Institute (NCRI) was created in 1984 by Congress to address
coastal economic stress following the 1979-82 recession. NCRI
is a research and development program within NOAA and is
administered by the Oregon System of Higher Education. The
organic legislation calls for NCRI to conduct research and to
carry out educational and demonstration projects designed to
promote the efficient and responsible development of ocean and
coastal resources including studies on economic
diversification and environmental protection in coastal areas.
For example, NCRI's 11CZM Remote Sensing User's Guide" is a
tool which coastal managers can use to assemble data to more
effectively manage and coordinate uses of the coastal zone.
The idea behind this comprehensive system is to use existing
off-the-shelf data, information obtained from direct sampling,
and remote sensed information to acquire sufficient
information to manage coastal zone resources and make informed
decisions relating to conflicting uses of coastal areas
(Cordell and Nolte, 1988a). This remote sensing system has
been used to identify areas suitable for aquaculture in
coastal waters around Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The
study identified potential sites for cultivating Pacific
oyster (Cordell and Nolte, 1988b).

NCRI is committed to using its resources in a way that
will have the greatest impact on future economic and public
well being of the coastal non-metropolitan communities. NCRI
addresses pressing problems and economic needs of the coastal
communities, complementing other federal and federally-
supported ocean and coastal programs. NCRI focuses on linking
research to developing technology with potential commercial
application, and commercial application in economically
important areas is a primary concern.

NCRI has identified five areas of priority for future
projects: aquaculture/fisheries, new marine products,
recreation and tourism, small business and community
assistance, and seafood technology/waste management. NCRI has

identified the northwest, from Mendocino County, California to
southern Alaska, as a region of primary focus..

b. Relationship to 309

NCRI studies often address economic development problems
facing coastal communities of more than one of the states of
the west coast region. Generally projects proposed for 309
funding which have an economic development orientation should
be referred to NCRI for possible funding under its economic
development grants program instead.

8. Corps of Engineers Shore Protection

a. Authority

Pursuant to federal legislation such as the Water
Resource Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) constructs shoreline protection
measures to preserve shorelines and beaches.

b. Corps Policy

It is Corps policy to provide federal assistance for
reducing damages to shorefront development and protecting
coastal resources resulting from shore erosion, hurricane, and
abnormal tidal and lake flooding by undertaking shore
protection projects where such projects serve the public
interest. The Corps will assist in the construction, but not
the maintenance, of works to protect against erosion by waves
and currents along the shores of the United States for
preventing property damage and promoting recreation. Project
proposals must be consistent with approved state CMP's to the
maximum extent practicable. In the past, projects have been
authorized for beach erosion control, shoreline protection,
hurricane protection, and other storm protection (COE, 1989).

C. The Extent of Corps Involvement

The extent of federal participation in shore protection
varies and is determined by the type of ownership and use, and
the incidence and type of benefits of the shoreline.
Publicly-owned shores or privately-owned shores with public
benefits can receive 65% federal funding for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, 50% for projects that prevent the loss
of land, and 50% for projects to protect recreational uses
associated with the shoreline, including parks and
conservation areas. Non-federal interests (i.e. state and
local government, private owners) must provide all lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocation, and dredged material
disposal areas needed for shore protection projects. Non-
federal interests generally receive a credit for the value of

these contributions against the non-federal cost share. The
remaining balance of the non-federal share must be provided by
the non-federal interest during the construction. Once
structured, the non-federal interests are responsible for
100% of the operation, maintenance, replacement, and
rehabilitation costs for shore protection projects (COE,
1989). d. Project Development
The Corps may initiate preauthorization studies relating
to shore protection with the authorization of Congress.
Without specific congressional authorization, the Corps may
initiate studies for projects which comprise a part of the
Corps continuing Authorities Program. Feasibility studies are
conducted under a contract providing 50-50 federal/non-federal
cost sharing. Postauthorization studies may be funded
completely by the Corps or through cost sharing, depending
upon the nature of the study (COE, 1989).

e. Relationship to 309

Regional criteria for identifying areas in need of
shoreline protection could be developed through 309 funded
studies.

9. Federal FloodRlain Management Activities

At least 27 federal agencies are involved in various
aspects of floodplain management in the U.S. Section 1302(C)
of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448)
provided that the objectives of a flood insurance program
should be integrally related to a unified national program for
floodplain management and requested that the President submit
proposals for such a unified national program. The President
originally assigned the responsibility for developing the
Unified National Program for Floodplain Management to the OMB
and Water Resources Council which developed the Program in
1976 and revised the Program in 1979. In 1982 this
responsibility was reassigned to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Following a series of executive
orders and statutory directives, FEMA has developed the
newest Unified National Program for Floodplain Management,
published in 1986, and a 1987 addendum (Further Advice on
Executive Order 11988 FloodRlain Management) under which FEMA
has attempted to coordinate federal, state, and local efforts
in floodplain management. Coastal floodplain management can
be viewed as a common problem facing all four states in the
west coast 309 region as discussed in the Coastal Hazards plan
element above.

10. Coastal Barrie rs Resource System

a. Authority and Current Status

The Coastal Barriers Resource System is administered by
the DOI pursuant to the Coastal Barriers Resource Act, 16
U.S.C.A. 3501 (1985), P.L. 97-348. Presently the Coastal
Barriers Resource System applies only to the Gulf and Atlantic
coasts and the Great Lakes. However, Congress may extend the
system to the west coast as it extended the system to the
Great Lakes in 1988. A 1988 report to Congress identified
coastal barriers on the west coast that served the same
function as those found on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
(Higpeth, 1988).

b. Purposes of the System

The purposes of the act are to preserve human and natural
resources associated with the coasts by restricting federal
expenditure and assistance that may have the effect of
encouraging development of coastal barriers and by considering
the means and measures by which the long-term conservation of
these natural resources may be achieved (16 U.S.C.A. 3501(b),
3504(a)). Undeveloped coastal barriers are defined in the act
to be depositional geological features that protect landward
aquatic habitats from direct wave attack, including the
associated aquatic habitats, adjacent wetlands, marshes,
estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters (16 U.S.C.A. 3502(l)).

C. Relationship to 309

Funding from 309 could be used to study further the need
to include Pacific coastal barriers in the Coastal Barriers
Resource System. Also, 309 funds could be used to coordinate
interstate efforts to study and preserve undeveloped Pacific
coastal barriers should Congress decide not to include them
under the act.

11. EPA National Estuaries Program

a. Authority

Section 317 of the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act
established the National Estuaries Program (NEP). Before
these amendments Congress had identified in EPA appropriations
four estuaries as estuaries of national significance, and
small scale projects had already been undertaken. Section 320
of the Act provides that the governor of any state can
nominate to the EPA any estuary that is in whole or in part in
their state, to be designated as an "estuary of national
significance" and request a management conference to develop a
comprehensive management plan for the estuary.

b. Function of the NEP

"management conference" for that estuary. The conference is
Upon designation as an estuary, EPA convenes a

composed of federal, state, and local officials with authority
to manage the estuary, along with special interest groups and
the public. The conferences have five years to alleviate
pollution problems in the estuary.

EPA and NOAA have come to an agreement on interagency
management to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts under V
NEP and the CZMA. Among other things, this agreement provides
coastal managers with a voice in the NEP conferences. EPA has
also agreed to comply with the federal consistency
requirements of the CZMA, to the maximum extent practicable.

Though originally tagged a "pilot program," there are
indications that the NEP will be a continuing non-pilot
program with annual appropriations. Congress directed the EPA
to give priority consideration to 11 estuarine areas including
Puget Sound, Washington and San Francisco Bay on the West
Coast. All 11 of these estuaries were in fact designated by
the EPA as NEP estuaries. Santa Monica Bay, California was
identified in appropriations legislation as to be given
priority consideration; EPA subsequently added it to the
Program. C. Funding'

The legislation makes federal grants available to public
and private entities to assist with the costs of a research,
surveys and other technical work needed to develop a
management plan, to cover up to 75% of the cost of the
research.

d. Relationship to 309

OCRM's Spring 1989 309 Guidance document gives priority
to projects in NEP estuaries. The goals of the NEP involve
both land use and water quality aspects: improved water
quality in the estuaries, habitat protection, and land use
control. Because the state CZM agencies are vital to these
areas, their participation is undoubtedly needed to accomplish
the NEP goals. State coastal zone managers can influence
estuarine water quality in a way to accommodate EPA's NEP
objectives, and 309 funds can be utilized to coordinate
interstate efforts to accomplish the EPA's task. The Columbia
River Estuary is the region's principal shared interstate
estuary which would benefit from interstate coordination of
coastal managers to meet EPA's objectives.

12. EPA Near Coastal Waters Initiative

The EPA's Near Coastal Waters (NCW) initiative is similar
to the NEP in that the EPA, in cooperation with the states,
will seek to address the declining state of the coastal marine
environment. EPA will be working with agencies not
traditionally thought of as having influence over water
pollution, such as fish and game agencies, public health
agencies, coa'stal planning agencies, agriculture, and other
areas. As with the NEP program, interstate coordination in
the coastal zone made possible with 309 funds and studies
funded by 309 will enable EPA to accomplish its goal of
improving the quality of the near coastal waters through
interstate cooperation. The states will reap benefits from
cleaner near coastal waters in many ways, some obvious and
others more intangible.

One of three state pilot projects in the nation under
this EPA initiative is an "Action Plan for Oregon Estuaries
and Ocean Waters" managed by Krystyna Wolniakowski of the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The methodology
developed by the project for improving coastal water quality
should be reviewed by the 309 program for use on a regional
basis.

The EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
(OMEP) completed a strategic plan for Near Coastal Waters at
the EPA Administrator's request in 1987. Coastal experts from
federal, state, and local coastal managers were involved in
developing the plan. The long-term plan extends the
experience and success achieved through the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, and National Estuaries Programs. It provides
a management framework for complete coastal ecosystems of
coastal waters that have problems similar to those experienced
in the current estuary programs. The plan's goal is to
protect and, where possible, enhance near coastal water
quality.

To implement the plan OMEP will identify areas that need
additional management attention, encourage federal and state
managers to use existing tools and resources, and help
implement new federal, state, and local management tactics for
improving the near coastal environmental water quality.

OMEP has undertaken four priority projects under the Near
Coastal Waters initiative:

1. A national assessment of the environmental status and
trends of all near coastal waters to identify those that need
additional management attention. With this assessment, OMEP
will assist the EPA's regions and state authorities in
developing regional coastal strategies.

2. Selecting pilot projects to demonstrate innovative
management strategies. One of the pilot projects already
undertaken is "Action Plan for Oregon Estuaries and Ocean
Waters," managed by Krystyna Wolniakowski of the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality.

3. A technology transfer initiative through which OMEP
can informally transfer and receive key information on coastal
problems and strategies. The national network will involve
environmental managers in coastal states, counties, and local
governments.

4. The examination and expansion of existing coastal
regulatory authorities within the EPA. (EPA, 1989).

The methodology developed by pilot projects for improving
coastal water quality under the initiative should be reviewed
by the 309 program for use on a regional basis. Also, the 309
program can utilize information and technology transfer made
available through OMEP.

13. Interlurisdictional Fisheries Act

a. Introduction

The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 (IFA)
establishes a formula-based financial assistance program to
promote the management of interjurisdictional fishery
resources throughout their range. (16 U.S.C. 4101 et sea.).
The Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to apportion
federal funding to states in proportion to the size and value
of a state's fishery resources, up to 6% of the total funds
appropriated to the Commerce department under the Act. (NOAA,
1988a). States are required to match federal funding for more
than 25% of the projects costs, unless the state has adopted a
fishery regulation which the Secretary has determined to be
consistent with the Federal fishery management plan for the
species to which the project applies, in which case the
federal funding may cover up to 90% of the project cost.
Project proposals may be submitted by interstate fishery
commissions such as the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission
headquartered in Portland, Oregon. The Secretary may also
distribute funds for disaster assistance in the event of a
commercial fishery failure (NOAA, 1988a).

b. Relationship to 309

The Northeast Pacific states have several inter-
jurisdictional fisheries, some of which are not effectively
managed through an interjurisdictional management regime, e.g.
shrimp. (Hildreth and Good, 1987) The states should apply

for federal research funds under the IFA to improve interstate
coordination in managing such fisheries. So long as Congress
continues to appropriate significant funds under the IFA, 309
funds generally should not be used for interjurisdictional
fisheries management.

14. Land and Water Conservation Fund

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
allocates funds to the Department of the Interior for
distribution to state and local governments for planning and
developing recreational.facilities. This Act, along with the
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, can be used by
federal and state agencies to acquire lands for outdoor
recreation and for endangered species (Nautilus, 1989a). The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently prepared a National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan to guide future wetlands
acquisition efforts. The plan will help local agencies and
the private sector identify wetlands suitable for protection
through measures other than fee title land acquisition. It
will help the states meet the Act's requirements to address
wetlands as an important outdoor recreation resource in their
statewide outdoor recreation plans (Nautilus, 1989a). Land
and water conservation funds are largely derived from OCS oil
and gas revenues, motorboat fuel taxes, and from federal
surplus sales. 1987 amendments extend funding through 2015
and carry an annual authorization of $900 million. (16 U.S.C.
4601).

Through interstate cooperation among the west coast
states, critical coastal areas can be identified through 309
regional management efforts. The states.can focus their
efforts on coastal zone wetlands that should be candidates for
acquisition or other methods of protection such as development
permit restrictions imposed by federal, state, and local
permitting authorities.

15. USGS/NOAA EEZ Seafloor Regional Mapping Effort

NOAA and the United States Geological Service (USGS) have
engaged in a cooperative effort to map the seafloor of the
EEZ. NOAA and USGS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) establishing the responsibilities of each agency for
mapping the EEZ. The agencies also have a joint EEZ program
office to coordinate activities with informational needs of
other agencies, academia, and the private sector, and to
conduct other administrative functions related to EEZ mapping.
Mapping of the EEZ adjacent to the four west coast states
should be left to this and other programs rather than
supported with 309 funds.

87.

16. References for Section VII.C.

Alaska Sea Grant, Project Directory 1988 (1987).

Alaska Sea Grant, Report from the Alaska Sea Grant College
Program: 1985-1988 (1989).

Archer, J. and Knecht, R., "The U.S. National Coastal Zone
Management Program--Problems and Opportunities in the
Next Phase," Coastal Management, v. 1 5, no. 2, p. 103,
(1987).

California Sea Grant, Program Directory 1989-90 (1989).

California Sea Grant, Program Directory 1988-89 (1988).

Cordell, E.V. and Nolte, D., CZM Remote Sensing User's Guide,
(Nov. 1988a).

Cordell, E.V. and Nolte, D., Feasibility of Using Remote
Sensing to Identify the Aguaculture Potential of Coastal
Waters, (Oct. 1988b).

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Water Resources
Policies and Authorities, Department of the Army
Regulation No. 1165-2-130 (June 15, 1989)..

EPA, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Marine and
Estuarine Protection: Programs and Activities (Feb.,
1989).

Fellerman, F., Draft Evaluation: Western Washington Outer
Coast National Marine Sanctuary, (June, 1988).

FEMA, A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management,
(March, 1986).

Foster, N. and Archer, J., "The National Marine Sanctuary
Program: Policy, Education, and Research," Oceanus, v.
35, no. 1, p. 5, (Spring, 1989).

Gordon, E.L., "Coastal Zone Management and the National
Estuary Program," 5 Coastal Zone 189 at 4022 (1989).

General Accounting Office, Offshore Oil and Gas: Environmental
Studies Program Meets Most Users Needs but Changes Needed
(1988).

Hildreth, R. and Good, J., Oregon Territorial Sea Management
Study, pp. 10-103 - 10-104, (June, 1987).

MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Draft Environmental Studies Plan,
Fiscal Year 1991-1992 (July, 1989b).

MMS, Pacific OCS Region, Draft Environmental Studies Plan, FY
1990, (Sept. 1988).

MMS, Pacific OCS Region, Draft Environmental studies Plan,
Fiscal Year 1991-1992, (1989a).

Nautilus Press, Coastal Zone Management, v. 20, no. 24,
(Botzum and Garner eds., August 31., 1989a).

Nautilus Press, Ocean Science News, v. 31, no. 26, (Botzum,
ed., Sept. 23, 1989b).

NOAA, Final Rule: Interjurisdictional Fisheries, 53 Federal
Register 20323 (June 3, 1988a).

NOAA, Final Rule: National Marine Sanctuary Proara
Regglations 53 Federal Register 43,802 (to be codified in
15 CFR Part 922), October 28, 1988b).

NOAA, Notice of Availability of Financial Assistance, 54
Federal Register 13,539 (April 4, 1989a).

NOAA, Announcement of Opportunities for Funding Research in
the National Estuary Reserve Research System for Fiscal
Year 1990, 54 Federal Register 14,266 (April 10, 1989b).

Oregon Sea Grant, Program Directory 1989-90 (1989).

Ross, D. "Sea Grant: A National Investment for the Future,"
Oceanus, v. 13, no. 3, pp. 6-11, (Fall, 1 988).

Washington Sea Grant, Program Directory 1989-90 (1989).

VIII. APPENDICES

A. OCRM SPRING 1989 309 GUIDANCE

B. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE

C. SUMMARIES OF INSTATE MEETING IN EACH STATE

D. PARTICIPANTS LIST, AGENDA, AND DRAFT PLAN OUTLINE
FOR REGIONAL WORKSHOP

E. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR PACIFIC COAST REGIONAL COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PLAN

I
i
I
I
I.
I
I
I
i APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
i

NOAA/OCP14 SPRING 1989

SECTION 309 GUIDANCE

Backaroun

The 1976 Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended (CZMA), authorized Section 309 entitled, "Coastal Zone
Management Interstate Grants." The purpose of Section 309 is to
provide funding for improving interstate planning in coastal
management through coordination between neighboring coastal
states and between Federal and state entities.

The intent of Section 309 is clearly stated in the language of
the Act. The regulations stated at 15 CFR Section 932 require
projects to:

Coordinate plans, policies, and programs in contiguous areas
of the coastal states;

Study, plan, and implement compatible coastal zone policies
with respect to such contiguous areas; and

Establish effective mechanisms for the identification,
examination, and/or cooperative resolution of mutual
problems with respect to the marine and coastal areas
which affect the applicable coastal zone. Particular
consideration is given to the establishment of Federal/
State consultation procedures.

The Section 309 Interstate Grant program is administered by
NOAA's Office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM).
The following Section 309 Guidance was prepared by OCRM.

Recuirements

General

All grant proposals should address mutual problems or issues
related to two or more states in a region and should identify the
interstate solution(s) and/or cooperation to accomplish the
objectives of the.proj*ect(s) As indicated below, pro)e-+,cz
covering shared waterbodies or estuaries with clearly identified
needs for interstate solution(s) will receive highest priority.
National or regional projects which require interstate
cooperation but not necessarily interstate solutions will also
receive consideration, but lower priority.

All proposals containing research projects or studies must be
multi-state in nature, not separate state research needs combined
into one application. Under this program, the Secretary of
Commerce is precluded from funding any work activity performed by
an interstate entity on behalf of only a single coastal state
(15 CFR Section 932.3(e)).

APPENDIX A

2
Pre-aip@lication consultation

Early consultation among coastal states is necessary and
encouraged by OCRM. Applicants should define regional needs, the
value of the end products, and establish priorities at the
earliest opportunity.

It is highly recommended that states or interstate entities
consult with OCRM staff prior to submitting a formal application
(15 CFR Section 932.21). As part of the consultation process,
OCRM also strongly encourages applicants to submit a draft
application. The omission of a draft application does not
preclude the possibility of a favorable review, but the addition
of a draft application will greatly enhance OCRM's ability to
identify a project's strengths and aid in correcting any
weaknesses prior to the final submission.
Formal S@bmission For interstate -Awards

Application Requirements

1. The applicant must respond to the program narrative
requirements as indicated in 15 CFR Sections 932.41-42.
The application must include:

a. a clear description of the contiguous area covered by
the application;

b. a general discussion of the purposes of the grant and.
the relationship of the grant proposal to approved
section 306 programs in the participating states;

c. a discussion of anticipated results and how the resul"Cs
will be integrated into the Section 306 programs of each
affected State; and

d. a clear detailed description of each task and how it
will be accomplished, the esti@zatpad total cost for eaclli
task, and the estimated total months to complete each
task. (15 CFR Section 932.42(d)(4)).

Technical Requirements

1. The Federal share of the application shall not exceed ninety
percent of the total cost of the interstate project. The
ten percent match required of the applicant may be provided
in cash or in-kind services. A brief description of the
composition and source of the matching share is required
(15 CFR Section 932.40 (b-d)) . However, the budget included
in the application must reflect the total cost of the
proposed project.

A-2

2. The application must include support letters from either the
heads of designated state agencies of the coastal management
programs or by the Governors of affected states. The
letters must meet the requirements of 15 CFR Section
932.42(b)(1-4)).

3. All applications are subject to the provisions of Executive
Order 12372 which pertains to intra-state review or other
clearinghouse review activities (15 CFR Section 932.42
(a and c)).

SelMction Criteria

OCRM staff will review each application to determine whether the
proposal meets the minimum requirements as described on pages 1-2
of this document. Applications meeting the minimum requirements
will be reviewed against the following criteria and scored on a
scale of i to 100. This score will provide the basis for funding
decisions.

Total Points

30 1. Highest priority consideration will be given
to proposals which demonstrate the urgency of
an interstate problem;- describe the need for
an interstate solution; cover an area with a
shared waterbody, or an estuary that has a
clearly identified need for an interstate
solution. Projects or studies which require
interstate cooperation.but which will not
necessarily solve specific interstate
problems will be given lower priority. Also,
priority consideration will be given to the
following projects:

(a) Estuarine research projects which use the
Nationa.1 Fstuarine Reserve Research System
(NERRS) under Section 315 of the CZMA-;

(b) Projects affecting estuaries where management
conferences have been convened as part of the
National Estuary Program (NEP) of the
Environmental Protection Agencyland;

(c) Projects which seek to transfer knowledge or
experience acquired under the NEP or NERRS
to other estuaries. However, these

1The Chesapeake Bay Estuary and the Great Lakes were the
precursers to the NEP and the model for which the NEP was
based. Therefore, these waterbodies will receive the same
priority as if they were part of the NEP.

A-3

applications must meet the Section 3og
requirements and demonstrate how the project
will effectively assist in the implementation
of more than one state's coastal management
program.
Total Points

25 2. The proposal clearly demonstrates a strong
likelihood that each affected state will
implement the conclusions and recommendations
of the project or study.

20 3. The project clearly meets the objectives,
goals,'and policies of each participating
Section 306 program (but does not "supplant"
306 funds) and the national policy objectives
as set forth in Section 303(2)(A-1).
Projects which include a State-Federal
consultation process pursuant to
15 CFR Section 932.12 will be given priority
consideration. OCRM may, in advance of any
proposed solicitation, identify particular
national policy objectives which will receive
special consideration.

10 4. The proposal must describe the qualifications
and past wark experience which demonstrates
the applicant's ability to accomplish the
goal of the proposal. Existing interstate
entities will be given funding priority over
temporary interstate entities created
pursuant to 15 CFR Section 932.12.

10 5. The proposal clearly identifies the
objectives, the work program and the end
products from each task.

5 6. The proposal-provides evidence that the
project is likely to be completed within a
twelve-month period and will not require
additional Section 309 funding for
completion.

OCRM Review Procedures

Initial Eligibility Review
All applications received prior to the deadline will be initially
screened for.eligibility. A proposal is ineligible if:

a. It is postmarked after the deadline.

A-4

b. The applicant is an ineligible entity (15 CFR Section
932.11).

C. The activities proposed are not eligible under Section
309 (see 15 CFR Section 932.1 and 932.2).
d. The application does not meet either the application or
technical requirements of the regulations.

Review Procedures and Application Schedule

All grant applications will be initially reviewed by a panel of
OCRM staff. All applications meeting the minimum standards will
be sent to at least one outside source, including representatives
of other Federal agencies, for peer review and comment. As
appropriate and based on the availability of peer reviewers, more
than one peer reviewer will be the preferred policy. All
reviewers'will be asked to make their comments in writing and
will be asked if their identity may be made known to applicants.
Applicants will have ten days to respond to reviewers' negative
comments.

Based on the criteria and reviewers I comments, OCRM will evaluate
and scare the projects on a scale of 1-100. All application
scores and recommendations for funding will be forwarded to the
Chief of the Coastal Programs Division, who, after consultation
with the review panel, will make the final recommendations on
funding levels.

Applicants may also be requested to provide additional
information throughout the review period.

The following general schedule will be used:

1. Pre-consultation with OCRM by January.

2. Submit final applications to OCRM by March 30.

3 Award grants July through SeptembeT.

Notification

All applicants will be notified as to the outcome of their
applications following the Financial Assistance Review Board's
review and approval of the applications.

Upon request, OCRM's evaluation of the projects, including scores
and comments, will be made available to all applicants after the
notification.

A-5

I
a
I
I

I
I APPENDIX B
I
I
I
I
I

i
I
I
I

NCRI 309 Projects: Interstate Questionnaire
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

INTERSTATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES

Pursuant to section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Coastal Research
Institute (NCRI) has funded two interstate coastal management projects that cover the states of
California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Members of the project team Include Richard Hildreth
of the University of Oregon [(503) 686-3866], Marc Hershman of the University of Washington [(206)
545-2469), Biliana Cicin-Sain of the University of California Santa Barbara [(805) 961-8393, and
Jon Isaacs of Jon Isaacs and Associates in Anchorage, Alaska [(907) 274-9719].

Pacific Coast ReWonal Interstate Coastal Manaaemento Californea, Oregon,
Washington and Alaska

The first study focuses on nearshore waters and coastal lands, and is expected to develop a set of
priorities for interstate coastal management for the four state region. The objectives are to look at
coastal management issues that the four states have in common, improve communication and the
flow of information, share management techniques, and promote collaboration on developing
research programs and changes to legislation. The study will 1) identify priority issues and specific
research needs forregional coastal management projects, including providing direction to 309 Grant
Funding, and 2) develop a long-range plan which provides a decision-making framework for
implementing these projects. Once the plan Is complete, future Pacific Coast 309 projects will
have to be consistent with the plan In order to be funded. Therefore your responses to this
questionnaire and participation In other stages of this project will signiflcantly affect 309
project funding decisions. An in-state workshop for agencies and organizations participating in
coastal managementwill be held In each state, followed by a regional workshop to discuss interstate
priorities.

Improyong State and Federal Ocean Governance Capabliffies In the Territorial Sea
and EEZ off the Pacific Coast States

The goal of the second study is to identify what is being and can be done at the state level to build
state capacity for ocean governance in cooperation with the federal government. It addresses
activities that are likely to take place in the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and territorial
sea (recently expanded to 12 miles). Four tasks will be accomplished:

- summarize what is known about activities and resource potential in the Territorial Sea
and EEZ off the Pacific Coast States;
- describe, for each of the four states, what is being done institutionally to address this
potential;
- describe the state level of capacity to participate in ocean management by examining
government policy programs, legislation, and expertise; and assess communication,
coordination, and decision making mechanisms between state and federal agencies; and
- use the experience of the four Pacific Coast states as a basis for offering suggestions for
regional mechanisms to enhance the capacity of the states for effective EEZ planning.

ARPENDIX B

NCRI 309 Proiects: Interstate Questionaire

HOW THE SURVEY WILL BE USED
Both projects call for information gathered from selected representatives of agencies and organiza-
tions within each of the four states as part of these studies. The intent is to use this survey to
consolidate information collection for the two projects, and to use the results to prepare for the
in-state and regional workshops. Information to be collected includes:
� what is known about activities and resource potential in the coastal-areas and territorial
waters/EEZ off of the four Pacific coast states;
� what is being done institutionally to address this potential;
� an assessment of each individual state's existing and potential ability to participate in
coastal and ocean management by examination of government policy programs, legis-
lation, and expertise;
� an assessment of communication, coordination, and decision making mechanisms
between state and federal agencies; and
� suggestions for enhancing the capacity of the states for effective interstate coastal
management and EEZ planning.
The use of a standard format will help ensure a uniform approach to data gathering in the four states
and provide results that will allow interstate comparisons. The Information gathered from the
surveys will be used in 1) designing and holding workshops and 2) providing information to be
incorporated in study findings.

SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS
We are sending you this survey form to help obtain information in the following areas:
- your organization's involvement in resource development and management activities in
coastal and ocean waters

- your organization's statutory and/or regulatory and management program responsibilities
in coastal and ocean management
- identification and ranking of coastal and ocean management issues
- your organization's research, information dissemination, and computer/electronic com-
munication capabilities
The information obtained will also be used to help set the agendas for the instate and regional
workshops.

We know that this is a lengthy questionnaire; your assistance will contribute to a better under-
standing of coastal and ocean management needs. Please review this form to determine which
parts are pertinent to your agency or organization, gather available information, fill out the
appropriate sections, and return the completed survey, using the enclosed self-addressed en-
velope, by June 12th.

If you have any questions, please contact the investigator for your state listed on Page 1 of this
packet.

B-2

NCRI 309 Projects: Interstate Questionnaire
..............I.................I..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
(please rill in the lines in this block)

Name:

Title/

Agency or Organization:

Division, Department, or Off Ice:

Address/Phone

Date

section 1 - Responsibilities and Interests in State and
Federal Waters

A. State Waters (coastal bays, sounds, estuaries and ocean waters and ocean
waters within the three mile limit)

1. Please check the following boxes to summarize activities of your agency or organization
that apply to to the following activities In state waters
policy and
regulatory planning research of staff
programs programs programs participating
oil and gas
offshore mining
fisheries management
fish and wildlife
management
waste disposal and
water quality
ports and marine transportation
recreation
coastal hazards and
emergency services
other (please list)

B@3

NCRI 309 Proiects: Interstate Questionnaire
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

2. What enabling legislation provides for your agency's or organization's Involvement In
activities In state waters? (please fillin the blanks, orprovide a reference oranaffachment)

a. statutory citation(s)

b. title(s)

c.summary/intent

3. Which of your programs apply to activities in state waters:

a. regulatory programs

b. policy development
and planning programs

c. research programs

d. resource use/development

e. resource conservation

4. What state and federal agencies do you Interact or coordinate with on these programs:

a. regulatory programs

b. policy development
and planning programs

c. research

d. resource use/development

e. resource conservation

5. What new programs has your agency or organization Implemented or participated In
for activities In state waters during the past year, and who has funded those programs?

program type
Program (regulatory, policy/planning, research Funding source
resource development)

B-4

NCRI 309 Prolects: Interstate Questionnaire
................................I.....................................................I............................................................................................................................................................

6. In the last five years, rank the following activities In which your agency or organization
has been most actively Involved for state waters ( 1 being the most active, 7 the least ac-
tive)

a. ( ) policy development and planning programs
b. ( ) permitting and decision making (regulatory programs)
C. ( ) research and resource management programs
d. coordination with the federal government
e. marine conservation practices
f. economic development activities
9. conflict resolution

7. Please estimate the % of federal funding for your state waters programs:

a. regulatory programs

b. policy development
and planning programs

c. research programs

d. resource development

e. resource conservation

8. What specific steps has your agency or organization taken to Interact with federal
agencies on state waters Issues? Are these relations generally cooperative and ongoing,
or reactive to specific events and adverserial?

9. What mechanisms are available to your agency or organization for negotiating with
state and federal agencies or resource users In state waters:

B-5

NCRI 309 Prolects: Interstate Questionnaire
................................I....................I...................................................................................I......................................................I ............I.....................................

B. Federal Waters(territorial sea outside three miles, Exclusive Economic Zone)

10. Please check the following boxes to summarize activities of your agency or organization
that apply to the following activities In-Q=n waters outsidg of state waters:
policy and
regulatory planning research of Staff
programs programs programs participating

oil and gas
offshore mining
fisheries management
fish and wildlife
management
waste disposal and
water quality
ports and marine transportation
recreation
coastal hazards and
emergency services
other (please list)

11. What enabling legislation provides for your Involvement In activities In ocean waters
outside of state waters? (please fill In the blanks, orprovide a reference or an attachment)

a. statutory citation

b. title(s)

c.summary/intent

12. Which of your programs apply to activities In ocean waters outside of state waters:

a. regulatory programs

b. policy development
and planning programs

c. research programs

d. resource use/development

e. resource conservation

13- 6

13. What state and federal agencies do you Interact or coordinate with on these
programs:

a. regulatory programs

b. policy development
and planning programs

c. research programs

d. resource use/development

e. resource conservation

14. What new programs has your agency or organization Implemented or participated In
during the last year for activities In ocean waters, and who has funded those programs?

program type
Program (regulatory, policy/planning, research Funding source
resource development)

15. In the last five years, rank the following activities In which agency your organization
has been most actively Involved In for ocean waters (I being the most active, 7 the least
active)

16. Please estimate the % of federal funding for your ocean waters programs:

a. regulatory programs

b. policy development
and planning programs

c. research programs

d. resource use/development

e. resource conservation

B-7

NCRI 309 Proiects: Interstate Questionnaire
.................................I ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........

17. What specific steps has your agency or organization taken to Interact with federal
agencies on ocean management issues? Are these relations generally cooperative and
ongoing, or reactive to specific events and adverserial?

18. What mechanisms are available to your agency or organization for negotiating with
state and federal agencies or users of ocean resources:

19 a. Please Identify what gaps exist (If any) In your state'a ability to more fully par-
ticipate In and benefit from the development of ocean resources In the Exclusive
Economic Zone or territorial sea:

19 b. In your view, what Is needed to overcome gaps In your state's ability to more fully
participate In and benefit from the development of ocean resources In the waters of the
Exclusive Economic Zone or territorial sea:

C. Ocean Policy and Management (Ocean Affairs) Capacity

20. Are there key leaders In your state that have made progress In ocean affairs possible
(Please check):

a. ( ) executive branch of government
b. ( ) legislative ranch of government
C. ( ) other organizations (please fiso

Please provide the names and title of Individuals who have been particularly significant

B-8

NCRI 309 Projects: Interstate Questionnaire
................................I..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

21. List any catalytic events In the coastal environment that have been a major factor In
developing ocean management programs or are likely to result In development of new
programs:

22. To participate In ocean affairs, has your state:

a. created new organizations (provide examples)

b. adapted old ones (provide examples)

C. Which seems to work best:

23. Who has funded new Initiatives In ocean affairs In your state (please list source of
lundlng)?

a. state
b. federal
C. other (please Aso

For what purposes has the money been used:

d. ( ) regulatory programs
e. ( ) policy development and planning programs
I. ( ) research programs
9- ( ) resource development
h. ( ) resource conservation

24. Has your state developed new ocean related policies In recent years?

a. yes
b. no

Are such efforts now underway?

C. yes
d. no

Do you believe these policies wil be:

e. integrated ocean management (eg. multiple use)
f. resource specific

13-9

NCRI 309 Proiects: Interstate Questionaire

25. Does your state have adequate numbers of marine professionals and sufficient Infor-
mation to participate In ocean affairs?

marine professionals
a. yes
b. no

sufficient Information
C. yes
d. no

If not, In what areas are capabilities are urgently needed?

e. regulatory programs
f. policy development and planning programs
g. research programs
h. resource management
i. economic development
j. information centers and clearinghouses
k. other (please list)

26. What mechanisms are available to local government to participate In ocean manage-
ment activities?

NCRI 309 Projects: Interstate Questionnaire
.........................................I.........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Section 2 - Identifying Priorities, Issues and Needs

A. State Waters

27. To help us determine Issues for In-state and Interstate workshops, please rank the foi-
lowing Issues In state waters (1 Is the highest priority):

a. coastal wetlands
b. shoreline protection
C. promoting public access with due regard for private property rights
d. aquaculture facility siting
e. integrating new approaches to estuary planning and management into
coastal zone management
f. state and regional approaches to coastal water quality
9. coastal management Implications of offshore development in state
and federal waters
h. the role of coastal management in implementing MARPOL V requirements
L fisheries management
oil spill contingency plans, response actions , and petroleum product and
hazardous substance transportation
k. other (please fiso:
other (please fiso:
other (please fiso:

28. What are your priority needs In responding to Issues listed above, or related Issues?
(please Indicate the specific subject they address eg., "research: effects of dispersants
on salmon fty")

a. additional legislation

b. programs

c. research

d. funding levels and sources

e. staffing (list by program area)

f. coordination with state and federal agencies

B-11

NCRI 309 Projects: Interstate Questlonnalre
............................. ...............................................I.................................................................................. ...........................I...................................................

B. Federal/Ocean Waters

29. To help us determine Issues for In-state and Interstate workshops, please rank your
priorities on the following activities and Issues In federal/EEZ waters (1 Is the highest
priority):
a. coastal management Implications of offshore development in federal waters
b. the role of coastal management in implementing MARPOL V requirements
C. fisheries management
d. oil spill contingency plans, response actions , and petroleum product and
hazardous substance transportation
e. the use of task forces, compacts, memoranda of understanding, and other
forms of federal/state intergovernmental agreements
f. other (please list:
other (please list:
other (please list:

30. What are your priority needs to respond to resource development Issues and con-
flIcts? (please Indicate the general needs by Issue or subject they address eg. research:
effects of dispersants on salmon fry)

a.additional legislation

b. programs

c. research

d. funding levels and sources

e. staffing (list by program area

f. coordination with state and federal agencies

31. List any catalytic events In the ocean environment that have been a major factor In
developing ocean management programs or are likely to result In development of new
programs:

B-12

NCRI 309 Projects: Interstate Questionnaire
................................ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

32. Please provide some guidance on other matters that could be Included on the agen-
das for the In-state and Inter-state workshops associated with these 309 projects:

Interstate Coastal Management

a. legislation

b. programs

c. research

d. funding

e. coordination

f. other

EEZ/territor'al sea

g. legislation

h. programs

L research

j. funding

k. coordination

1. other

B-13

NCRI 309 Projects: Interstate Questionnaire
................................I ..................................................................................................................................I...............................................................................

Section 3 - Regional Coordination

33. In carrying out the work of your agency or organization, about how often do you com-
municate with personnel In simila agencies/organizations In other Pacific Coast states
(please note that "similar" means entities dealing with the same resource - eg. fisheries -
or Issues - eg. coastal management)

a. once a week or more
b. once a month
C. once every three months
d. once every six months
e. once a year
f. only rarely (once every two to three years)
9. never

34. What form do these contacts/communication generally take?

a. ( ) mainly on the telephone
b. ( ) meetings
C. ( ) special conferences, workshops
d. ( ) annual meetings of regional or professional organizations
e. other

35. In carrying out the work of your agency or organization, about how often do you com-
municate with personnel In different agencies/groups In other Pacif Ic Coast states
(please note that "different" means entities dealing with different resources or Issues -eg.
fisheries agency dealing with a coastal management agency)

a. once a week or more
b. once a month
C. once every three months
d. once every six months
e. once a year
f. only rarely (once every two to three years)
9. never

36. What form do these contacts/communication generally take?

a. ( ) mainly on the telephone
b. ( ) meetings
C. ( ) special conferences, workshops
d. annual meetings of regional or professional organizations WF
e. other (please liso
f.

B-14

37. Below Is a list of some of the existing mechanisms for regional coordination/plan-
ning/regulation. Would you please check those In which your agency/organization has
partcIpated?

a. Western Governors Conference
b. Western Legislative Conference
C. Western Attorney Generals Association
d. National Coastal Resources Institute
e. Pacific and North Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Councils
t. Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission
9. ( ) Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task Force
h. ( ) Western Association of State Submerged Lands Managers
i. ( ) Northeast Pacific Regional Consultative Group
j. ( ) other (please liso

38. Some have suggested that It would be useful for the Pacific Coast states to consider
creating some type of regional mechanism to better coordinate the state's actions on
shared and common problems related to the management of ocean and coastal resour-
ces. Do you think that this Is:

a. a good idea (please list suggested mechanism
b. a bad idea
C. you are indifferent

39. If you answered (a) above, what major functions need to be performed by such a
regional mechanism? (please rank the top three):

a. ( ) anticipate the regional implications of expanded offshore activities in the
Exclusive Economic Zone
b. ( ) share experience on common/similar issues (such as offshore oil)
C. ( ) address shared problems among two or more states (eg. pollution issues)
d. ( ) enhance the capacity of each state for ocean and coastal management through
information exchange with other states
e. ( ) develop coordinated/standardized state policies that would'encourage private
investment/economic development by industry
f. ( ) coordinate and enhance the state's position vis-a-vis the federal government
through a collective approach
g- ( ) other (please liso

B-15

NCRI 309 Prolects: Interstate Questionnaire
...................................I ............................................................I................................................................................................I..............I...................................

Section 4 - Data Management And Communication
Capability

[Note: the purpose of this section is to assess the in-state and interstate capability to share
information on coastal and ocean management issues]

A. Data Management Capabilities

40. What types of coastal or ocean research/management data programs does your agen-
cy have or participate In?

a. Information collected and stored:

b. hardware and software systems used for data management and dissemination:

c. with whom do you coordinate or receive Input from on data management activities:

state agencies

federal agencies

interstate efforts

private industry

information networks

B-1-6

NCRI 309 Projects: Interstate Questionnaire
........................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

B. Communication And Coordination Capability

41. Please llst/descrlbe specific programs for communication or coordination on coastal
and ocean management:

a. intra-agency

b. inter-agency

0. federal-state coordination

42. Please list specific mechanisms utilized In ocean and coastal management com-
munIcation and coordination

a. hardware (computers, electronic mail etc.)

b. publications

c. workshops and conferences

Conclusion

On behalf of all four investigators, NCRI, and the 309 Program coordinators in the four states,
we thank you for participating in this survey. Please mail the completed questionnaire in the
enclosed self-addressed envelope, or if it has been misplaced, mail it to:

Jonlsaacs
Jon Isaacs and Associates
2418 Forest Park Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517

B-17

I
I
A -
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX C
I .
I
I
I
I
I

m
im-

309 PROJECT INTERSTATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP
AUGUST 1, 1989: ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

NAME AGENCY

Jan Caulfield Division of Governmental. Coordination
Sarah Hunt Division of Governmental Coordination
Joaqlin Estes Division of Governmental Coordination
Kurt Fredrickson Division of Governmental Coordination
Kerry Howard Department of Environmental Conservation
Jim Powell Department of Natuaral Resources
Deborah Greenberg Department of Fish and Game
Christy Miller Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Maureen McCrae Minerals Management Service
Roger Mercer NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service
Hank Pennington University of Alaska, Marine Advisory Service
Darcy Lockhart-Richards Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service Area

APPENDIX C

ALASKA INSTATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP

AUGUST 1, 1989
ANCHORAGE AND JUNEAU, ALASKA
by Jonathan Isaacs, co-investigator

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the discussions at an Alaska in-state workshop pursuant to the
"Northeast Pacific Ocean Regional Interstate Coastal Zone Management Plan".
Continuing state and federal agency responsibilities affected both scheduling and
attendance at the workshop. The workshop was held in Anchorage, and in Juneau
via teleconference. The workshop announcement, agenda, and list of participants is
attached as Attachments A, B, and C. This report will first present some general
comments from workshop participants on the Section 309 program and general issues
and needs, followed by priorities and needs discussed by specific issues. Most of the
participants found that the workshop was worthwhile in bringing people together to
discuss current management, research, and information sharing needs, even beyond
the focus of the 309 program.

This report lists all of the needs and issues identified by participants. Some of the
issues and needs discussed below may not fit the regional requirements of the 309
program; however, they are included in this summary for the benefit of workshop
participants. They may also be useful in setting state coastal management priorities
beyond the 309 program. Participants will review the list presented in this report and
make suggestions regarding Alaskan priorities for the reg ional workshop

GENERAL ISSUES AND NEEDS

Several general issues and needs resurfaced throughout the workshop. These are
described below:

The 309 Grant Process

The first issue raised was the length and complexity of the 309 grant process itself.
A potential period of 18 months from call for pre-proposals to project award and startup
makes it difficult to meet short-term coastal management needs, which are often the

C- 2

most pressing ones. State and federal managers aren't always thinking 18 months
ahead in programming projects. The time required by the numerous steps in the pre-
proposal and formal proposal process also constrain state and federal agencies in
Alaska from putting together well-thought out or competitive proposals. Other
commitments make it difficult for them to spend the time on a successful proposal
effort. The type of projects that have been funded by the 309 program have not been
applicable to current coastal management issues in Alaska, and integration of 309
projects into agency operations has been non-existent. As a result of these factors,
there has been little attention paid to the 309 program by Alaskan agencies.

However, the agencies that attended the workshop feel that the process undertaken
through this project, identifying projects in advance and assigning priorities to them, will
definitely help in identifying 309 projects that are more useful to the agencies. This
knowledge will also assist agencies in preparing proposals that are likely to be more
successful.

Information Sharing With Other States

A second recurring theme was information sharing with other states. Alaska's
geographic separation from the rest of the west coast feeds a sense of isolation,
particularly with regard to coastal management activities by the other Pacific states.
Of particular interest were regulatory and management approaches to Alaskan issues
that may have already been addressed by other states. Several attendees felt that
time could be saved from "re-inventing the wheel" on problems where other states offer
experience or solutions. They also felt that all states could benefit from better
information sharing. The concept of a regional data center or information inventory
was mentioned; problems with keeping a data center up to date are recognized.

Integrating Regulatory Requirements with Current Developments in Available
Technology or Research

Workshop participants indicated that a common agency and permitting problem is the
gap between regulatory standards (eg. for acceptable levels of pollutants or
requirements for use of technology) and the best technology or research information
currently available. Applications to mining and water quality were specifically mentioned.

c-3

Interstate Agreem ents and Staff Exchao_qes

Staffing demands created by the Exxon Valdez oil spill have required that federal
agencies in particular bring in personnel from their offices in other parts of the country.
The experience and different perspectives that these personnel bring with them have
been educational to Alaskan staff. The concept of some form of short term personnel
exchange between state agencies or within different offices of federal agencies is worth
discussing on a regional basis to determine potential value and level of interest. a
related concept is the creation of interstate, interagency agreements covering
emergency management and response. In addition to responding to emergency
events, it could also include personnel, training, and technical information exchange.

SPECIFIC ISSUES

Coastal Water Quality and Marine Debris

1. Non-point Source Water Pollution - Needs include developing a strategy and
means of implementing a program to control non-point source water pollution.
Urban and storm runoff, mining and timer operations were included in this
category. Information sharing with other states on programs developed,
techniques utilized, and how they've worked is desirable. A specific project idea
mentioned is the use of remote sensing to identify and monitor non-point source
pollution problems and as an enforcement tool when regulations are in place.

2..In-stream Flow Reservations - Needs included developing a state program for
regulating instream flow reservations, given increasing requests for water
withdrawals. Information sharing with other states on programs developed,
techniques utilized, and how they've worked is desirable.

3. Harbor and Marine Water Quality - problem areas include discharges by
seafood processing facilities, bilge pump and other vessel discharges, and
potential discharges from aquaculture operations. Needs include information on
potential habitat damage, regulatory and technological options available, and
public information problems.

4..Municigal Response to MARPOL V Reguirements - Alaskan municipalities are
having a problem responding to MARPOL V requirements, particularly with
disposal and recycling capabilities and dealing with foreign vessel garbage which
must be quarantined. Solutions and recommendations from other communities

C-4

are of interest, as is developing a regional response to MARPOL V
requirements. There is no coordinated federal-state response to meeting
MARPOL, and no one is currently providing significant technical assistance to
ports and communities.

5. Becycling Marine Debris and Garbage - recycling opportunities exist for
madne garbage, particularly fishing nets, which can be separated and sent back
to Asia for reuse or potentially used in local erosion control projects.
Development of community-based technologies or a regionaJ center are potential
projects.

6. Beach Clean:Q - as with marine debris, lack of technical assistance or
repositories for beach garbage collected are a problem at the community level.

Coastal Wetlands and Estuaries

1 .'No Net Loss Strategy - the four Pacific states could work together to establish
a broad strategy and approach to respond to the federal No Net Loss policy for
wetlands. It should be recognized that Alaska's status with regard to wetlands
is most likely different from the other states.

2. Establish a Statewide Wetlands, Taskforce - fund a facilitator to establish a
statewide wetlands taskforce representing federal and state agencies, scientists,
industry and communities to develop a statewide plan and implementation
recommendations for identification and management of wetlands. The
methodology and process developed may be of interest to other states.

3. Preparation of Advanced Identification of Wetlands Regulations - Alaskan
communities are among the first to submit wetlands management programs for
advanced identification of wetlands to the Corps of Engineers. The COE has
provided little formal guidance on this issue, and development of regulations or
guidelines may be of regional interest.

4. Mitigation and Restoration of Wetlands - inventory wetland mitigation and
restoration techniques, and evaluate them as to whether they work. Information
sharing on the experience of other states in wetlands mitigation, restoration, or
creation is also desirable.

c-5

5. State Assumption of Section 404 Program - State and/or municipal
assumption of COE Section 404 Program responsibilities are being contemplated
in Alaska. A regional evaluation of benefits and constraints associated with
assumption of the 404 program may be of interest.

Mariculture and Aquaculture (including finfish farms)

1. 6guaculture/madculture Siting Criteria - establish criteria for siting aquaculture
and mariculture projects, such as physical setting (water quality, depth, currents),
gear and navigation conflicts, upland use considerations (particularly with regard
to water quality), and water quality (discharges) and aesthetic considerations
resulting from project operation.

2. Permittina and Regulatory Requirements - evaluate permitting and regulatory
requirements in other states or countries (Japan, Canada, Europe) to determine
what has and hasn't worked; then develop a set of permitting and regulatory
requirements that could be used for the region.

3. Comparative Studies - compare a prospective site in one or more of the
states with operational sites in other states or countries.

Offshore Oil and Gas Development and Product Transportation

1. Monitoring and Corrigliance Programs - develop a federal-state strategy for
1) offshore oil and gas activity monitoring and compliance with federal and state
regulations, and 2) petroleum product transportation monitoring and compliance
with federal and state regulations

2. Clean-up- of Abandoned Leases - develop regulations, procedures and
assignment of responsibility for cleaning up abandoned oil and gas leases.

3. Territorial Sea Jurisdiction - develop a region-wide strategy towards state
involvement in the management of oil and gas resources within the territorial

sea.

4. Minimum Standards for Lease Sales - development of minimum standards for
the west coastal region for state and federal oil and gas lease sales. These

C_ 6

would include design standards, contingency planning and response capability,
risk assessment (including training and drills), cost-benefit analysis, and state
and community involvement in planning and decision making.

5. Minimum Standards for Transportation of Oil - development of minimum
standards for the west coastal region for the transportation of petroleum
products. These would include design standards, contingency planning and
response capability (including training and drills), performance bonds, monitoring
and enforcement, and state and community involvement in planning and decision
making.

6. Inventory of West Coast Spill Resgonse Capacity - assess the spill response
capacity of the west coast through an inventory of response organizations,
equipment, personnel, and contingency/response plans.

7. Assessment of Oil Spill Technology - compile an inventory of available oil spill
technology, particularly from other production areas such as the North Sea,
and compare it to what is currently in use or - on hand in the region, with
recommendations for bringing regional response up to best available technology.

8. Community Oil Spill Response Plan Model - develop a model for a
community oil spill response plan, including equipment needs, training, funding
and user fees.

9. Assessment of Extent of General Oil Pollution - Assess the regional level of
general marine oil pollution and implications for changes in vessel design (eg.
ballast water systems and double bottoms), regulatory systems, and monitoring
and enforcement.

10. Evaluation of Marine Traffic Systems - evaluate regional marine traffic
management systems and what is technologically available, with
recommendations for voluntary and non-voluntary systems.

11. Other Hazardous Materials - there are other hazardous materials in the
marine environment, both transported as a commodity or present as a standard
operating component on vessels (eg. ammonia, chlorine). The nature and
general amounts of these materials should be assessed, along with the potential
threat they impose. Appropriate guidelines for what to expect with spills and
how to respond could be developed.

-C-7

Minerals Development

1. Use of remote sensing - A specific project idea mentioned is the use of
remote sensing to identify and monitor mining non-point source pollution
problems and as an enforcement tool when regulations are in place. A pilot
project could be designed to monitor one or more specific offshore or floodplain
mining projects with remote sensing over the course of a year to evaluate
patterns of sediment discharge.

2. Technology and Regulato!y Requirements - regulations for testing and
maintaining water quality for mining projects need to be revised to reflect current
available technology and research on acceptable water quality standards. This
is a concern with offshore gold mining and mercury levels, and is potentially a
concern with the heap leach cyanide process for recovering gold. This is also
an interest in finding out what other states have in place in terms of regulations,
standards, and technology requirements.

3. Intertidal Mining Jurisdiction - Alaskan expedence with intertidal beach mining
proposals has indicated confusion over federal permits required and agency
jurisdiction. A regional federal-state task force should clarify jurisdiction and
permits required.

4. Water Quality Pilot Project - investigate the use of hydrocyclones, used to
concentrate recoverable minerals, to treat wash/waste waters to remove
sediment or other undesirable discharge.

5. Miticiation and Restoration of Mining Sites- inventory mining mitigation and
restoration techniques, and evaluate them as to whether they work. Information
sharing on the experience of other states in mined lands mitigation and
reclamation is also desirable.

Shore Protection, Coastal Hazards, and Placement of Structures

1. Erosion Zone Manaaement - Interim federal regulations are now available on
Erosion Zone Management. There needs to be a regional interface with
developing national standards and integrating them into coastal management
programs.

C-8

2. Coastal Barriers Resources Act - The federal Coastal Barriers Resources Act
ap pears to be oriented towards southeast U.S. barrier island systems. There
is a need to develop a west coast regional approach to implementing and
complying with the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, including appropriate
classification of coastal barrier island systems and development of reasonable
standards.

3. Flood Hazard Areas - How other state coastal man agement programs address
flood hazard areas and requirements is of interest to Alaska, including use of
the state or local entity to condemn a structure for the purposes of moving it.

Fisheries and Coastal Mananement

1. Coastal Consistency of Fisheries Programs - One participant felt that Alaskan
Coastal Management Program policies regarding fisheries and fisheries
..management programs need to be upgraded. There is an interest to find out
how coastal management programs of other states address approval and
consistency of fisheries management programs.

C-9

PARTICIPANTS LIST

for

WORKSHOP ON

DEFINING PRIORITY COASTAL AND OCEAN
MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA AND
IN THE PACIFIC REGION

Michael McCollum Mary Bergen, Staff Marine Biologist
Department of Fish and Game State Lands Commission
1416 9th Street, Rm 1311 1807 13th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814

Mary Griggs Jim Pardau
CCORS Manager Consultant
State Lands Commission 4309 Vista del Lago Way
1807 13th Street Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Sacramento, CA 95814

Michael Martin Bob Radovich
Department of Fish and Game Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814

Lon Spharler, Manager Dr. Reinhard Flick
Department of Parks and Recreation Beach Erosion Branch
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1138-5 Department of Boating and Waterways
Sacramento, CA 95814 1629 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Karen Taberski Jody Loef f ler
Department of Health Services CA Coastal Commission
2151 Berkeley Way, Room 118 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704 San Francisco, CA 94105

Jim Burns Peter Douglas
Chief Deputy Director Executive Director
CA Coastal Commission CA Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street, 4th Floor 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA 94105

Susan Wade Steve Eabry
Environmental Affairs Agency Morro Bay Task Force
Office of Offshore Development County Government Center
1102 Q Street c/o Planning Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408

C-10

Ken Collier Dennis O'Bryant
Department of Parks and Recreation Department od Conservation
1416 Ninth Street 1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814

Edward Anton Rob Wilder
Division of Water Quality Office of Assemblyman Hauser
901 P Street State Capitol
P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95814
Sacramento, CA 95814

Rodney R. McInnis Nat Bingham, President - PCFFA
National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1626
300 South Ferry Street, Room 2005 3000 Bridgeway, Suite 104
Terminal Island, CA 90731 Sausalito, CA 94966

John Saurenman Marianne Yamaguchi
Deputy Attorney General Southern CA Assn of Governments
State of California 818 West Seventh
1515 K Street, Suite 511 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814 Los Angeles, CA 90017

anet Hashimoto Phillip Meyer
Environmental Protection Agency Meyer Resources, Inc.
J215 Fremont Street P.O. 1152
San Francisco, CA 94105 Davis, CA 95617

Tom Wakeman - Chief of Spec. Studies Eugenia Laychak
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Resource Center
211 Main Street P.O. Box 162696
San Francisco, CA 94105 Sacramento, CA 95816

Honorable Sam Farr Jim Rote
Member of the Assembly Joint Committee on Fisheries and
Twenty-eighth District Aquaculture
State Capitol, Room 3120 State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain Craig Denisof f
Director Joint Committee on Fisheries and
Ocean and Coastal Policy Center Aquaculture
Marine Science Institute 1414 K Street
University of California Suite 475
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Sacramento, CA 95814

C-11

Clyde McDonald Warner Chabot
Principal Consultant Central Coast OCS
Assembly Office of Research Regional Studies Program
I 100 J Street 116 New Montgomery Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94105

Bill Travis Annie Nottof f
Bay Conservation and Natural Resources
Development Commission Def ense Council
30 Van Ness, Room 2011 90 New Montgomery, Suite 620
San Francisco, CA 94102-6013 San Francisco, CA 94105

Don Lollock Dr. Gordon Snow
Department of Fish and Game State Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814

Masi Okasaki Dee Chamberlin
NOAA/OCRM 630 Task Force - Oil & Gas
Universal Building South ARCO
1825 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 515 S. Flower Street
Washington, D.C. 20235 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Mary Elaine Dunaway Tom Knepher
Minerals Management Service Friends of the Estuary at
Federal Building Morro Bay
1340 West Sixth Street P.O. Box 1375
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Morro Bay, CA 93442

Genevieve Shiroma Jennifer Scholl
Energy Projects Section Ocean and Coastal Policy Center
Air Resources Board Marine Science Institute
1102 Q Street University of California
Sacramento, CA 95812 Santa Barbara, CA 93106

C-12

AGENDA

WORKSHOP ON

DEFINING PRIORITY COASTAL AND OCEAN MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN

CALIFORNIA AND IN THE PACIFIC COAST REGION

Monday, August 28, 1989

Auditorium, State Resources Building
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California

9:00 A.M. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

-Purposes and conduct of workshop

-Background- Two Pacific Coast studies funded by NCRI
with NOAA CZM 309 funds

-Major questions to be addressed at the meeting

-Explanation of procedures for concurrent workshops
on five substantive topics

10:00 to 2:00 CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS (5 topics- see attached list)

12:00 to 1:00 PICK UP LUNCH (at your convenience and continue workshop
discussions)

2:15 to 4:30 REPORTS OF CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS by co-facilitators
(25 minutes per group- 15 minutes (maximum) for
presentation by one or both co-facilitators- 10 minutes
for general discussion)

4:30 to 5:00 WRAP-UP- COMMENTS ON ALL TOPICS

C-13

GUIDELINES FOR CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS

QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED

1. What is the nature of the "problem area" (e.g., coastal water quality)
being addressed? (Feel free to redefine the "problem area" if you feel it Nis
not been framed properly.)

2. What are the specific issues that are involved?

3. Are the issues related more to the lack of good information on the
problem or to such factors as value conflicts between groups or agencies
holding different perspectives, gaps in legal authority, etc.?

4. To what extent, if any, are the following important in the problem area
being addressed:

-problems in communications/relations among state agencies?

-problems in communications/relations between the legislative and
executive branches of state government?

-problems in state/local conmnications/relations?

-problems in state/federal communications/relations?

-differing perceptions as to the urgency of the problem?

--lack of resources to more fully address the problem/need?

5. To what extent, if any, is the problem area in question also important in
other Pacific Coast states?

6. What needs to be done to address the problem area?

7. More specifically, what institutional steps need to be taken to address
the problem area?

-within and among state agencies

-between state and federal governments

--between state and local governnments

--among the various Pacific Coast states

C-14

8. ;,ftiat, if anything, ought to be done on a regional Pacif ic Coast level?

--would some kind of reginal comunication/coordination mechanism
be useful?

--If so, what form should it take?

9. What are the priority research needs in this area? (with approximate
budget figures and possible sources of funding [if possible])

--for the immediate term (1 to 2 years)

-for the medium term Q to 5 years)

-for the long-term (6 to 10 years)

SUGGESTIONS FOR RUNNING THE CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS

Role of the co-facilitators is to insure that:

--all major questions in the question guide are addressed

--to involve other participants in the discussion

--to insure that all relevant viewpoints are considered

Recorder: Co-facilitators should appoint a participant to record
the discussions at the outset of the workshop meeting

Presentations by 1 or 2 co-facilitators to the entire meeting should
reflect both any consensus reached in the discussions as well as major
differences in opinion which become apparent in the workshop
discussions.

Resource materials for each workshop

-report from Washington in-state meeting
-report from Alaska in-state meeting
--report from Oregon in-state meeting
-draft of regional coastal zone management plan (by Hildreth)
--guidelines for 309 projects
--list of past 309 projects

Resource individuals

--Jody Loeffler, 309 coordinator, California Coastal Commission
-Gordon Snow, Resources Agency
-Masi Okasaki, NOAA/OCRM
-Biliana Cicin-Sain, Ocean and Coastal Policy Center, NCRI project
leader
--Jennifer Scholl, Ocean and Coastal Policy Center, logistics

C-15

WORKSHOP NOTES

for

WORKSHOP ON

DEFINING PRIORITY COASTAL AND OCEAN
MANAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA AND
IN THE PACIFIC REGION

Monday August 28, 1989
Auditorium, State Resources Agency
Sacramento, California

WORKSHOP 1: Coastal water quality (nearshore and ocean waters)
relationship between coastal water quality and CZM, oil spill plans,
implementing MARPOL ANNEX V, etc.).

Presented by Edward Anton Water Resources Control Board
Notetaker: Karen Taberski Department of Health Services

Participants:

Mary Bergen - State Lands Commission
Janet Hashimoto - Environmental Protection Agency
Peter Douglas - California Coastal Commission
Mike Martin - Department of Fish and Game
Marianne Yamaguchi - Southern California Association of Governments

What is the nature of the problem?

1. To protect water uses for beneficial needs from toxics and
pathogens:
a. Protecting aquatic life
b. Protecting human health

SPECIFIC ISSUES

1. Bioaccumulation of toxics - moving up the food chain (PCBs,
dioxins - we do not know the extent of the problem)

2. In-place toxics - (sediment quality) What is the acceptable level
of sediment pollution?

3. Sediment Quality (Sediment Affect Threshold)
a. Prevention
b. What levels cause a toxic effect?
c. Who is responsible for clean-up?

4. Pathogen indicators and the relationship to human health (ie. ,
bathing in pathogenic water)

5. Urban runoff - a significant source of ocean pollution. How to
control this ... the need for education

6. Pesticides (herbacides, insecticides), agricultural runoff

C-16

7. Turbidity and sedimentation due to:
a. erosion
b. drilling muds and cutting

8. Water quality assessment (monitoring)
a. How do we best measure effects or the potential effects
(Regional monitoring?).
b. Cost effective
c. Reliable data
d. How to best make data accessible
e. How to interpret data

9. Need bioassement to indicate and provide a better understanding of
toxic effects other than lethal, (ie., sub-lethal: reproductive, and
carcinogenic)

10. Plastics - deal with control mechanisms

ll.-' Evaluate disposal options (land, water, or air)

PROBLEMS

1. There needs to be more effort to communicate between agencies,
lawmakers need to coordinate and to be aware of conflicts and to not
create gaps within policies (comprehensive without overlap). How do you
institutionally implement "regionalism"?

2. Intermediate exchange needs to be addressed: difficulties are
competitiveness and different goals

3. California has more of a water quality connection with Mexico than
with Oregon or Washington although all three states have common concerns
with regards to wat er quality.

PRIORITY RESEARCH NEEDS

1. Develop oil spill readiness plan for the West Coast

2. Dealing with urban runoff - (storm water systems) - coordinate
work with EPA

3. Develop analytical techniques for dioxin that is cost effective

4. More work in die-off rates of indicator organisms and pathogens
under different conditions.

5. Develop a method of quantifying Norwalk virus

6. Screening of marine mammal tissue (seal, sea lion) for
bioaccumulation.

7. Measure coliplage in storm drains and investigate sources to
determine the validity of its use as a human specific indicator

C-17

Concluding remarks:

1. There is a lack of knowledge, evidence and in some cases a lack of
technology in response to these problems. (This is especially the case in
the area of pathogens).

2. There does not seem to be enough coordination between groups
involved in water quality issues.

WORKSHOP 2: Implications (onshore and offshore) of development in state
and federal waters, e.g., offshore oil, ocean mining, etc.

Presented by Warner Chabot - Central Coast OCS, Regional Studies
Program

Notetaker - Tom Wakeman - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Participants:

Mary Elaine Dunaway - Minerals Management service
Mary Griggs - State Lands Commission
Jody Loeffler - California Coastal Commission
Phillip Meyer - Meyer Resources, Inc.
Dennis O'Bryant - Department of Conservation
Genevieve Shiroma - Air Resources Board
Lon Spharler - Department of Parks and Recreation
Rob Wilder - Office of Assemblyman Hauser

ISSUES

1. State sovereignity ys Federal Ms Regional

2. Interjurisdictional (state/region) Issues
a. policy formulation
b. implementation relationships

3. Offshore mining planning

4. Geologic assessment (onshore and offshore)

5. Hazard and Resource Assessment

6. Joint occupancy between governmental agencies

7. Broad government controls of oil spills

8. Impacts of development on natural environment

9. Congressional mandates are not timely and they are sometimes
controversial between state and national legislation.

C-18

10. Unified approach to energy policy at National level as applied to
coastal environment

11. Re-education of state/public players because of the lack of
technical continuity.

12. Multi-directional communication/education

13. Inability to presently meet Federal standards by coastal areas;
want on/offshore consistency for Federal/State standards

14. Adequacy vs Consistency between State and Federal standards

15. Ability to handle oil spills

16. Centralized database for technology/regulatory and resource
issues (compile and assess), GIS system

17. Determination of who (what agencies) has jurisdictional authority
an where

18. Communication between legislature and the Federal/State agencies

19. Local governments' authority and assessment of impacts vs
Federal/State agency direction/authority

20. Public understanding limited as well as assessibility to
technical data from State/Federal agencies (public education deficiency)

21. Respect for the diversity of local environments and peoples'
wishes at regional level; emphasis of needs/values of Indians and local
governments - the people impacted that live on the coast

22. Equitable spread of risk between impacted groups and user groups
(transfer of risk)

23. Increase in costs to proponents Ms adequate measures to offset
potential risks

24. Develop more sustainable approach for planning - long-term,
renewable resources vs nonrenewable

25. Public opinions of scientists/technicians

26. Rigidity in legislative framework (State/Federal/Local)

27. Technical credibility:
a. different experts
b. uncertainty of data
C. institutional and legislative sideboards leading to research

C-19

SYNTHESIS OF ISSUES:

I. Process to resolve issues

1. Structure
a. 41 Air Boards
b. Centralized agency overview (1 board)

2. Technical Issues

Ii. Improvement of information exchange between State/Local gove'rnments
to keep abreast of development through clearinghouse to improvement
coordination/planning/policy.

1. West coast topical newsletter on monthly basis to provide update
of activities

2. Electronic transfer of information

III. Public Process (Bottom-up Analysis)

1. disaggregation of process and evaluation as well as implementation
(State and Federal oversight)

2. issue of control and distribution of resources to public as
planning partner

IV. Plan sharing

1. Clearinghouse to reduce duplication

2. Cost-sharing with information

3. Insure feedback from information dissemina.tion by involvong "lay"
public to short circuit public disbelief of process/technology

RESEARCH NEEDS

I. Under the constraint of $250,000 budget: Prepare a vehicle fpr
disseminating information

1. Communication between:
a. States
b. Local, Regional, State, and Federal elected officials
c. Local, Regional, State, and Federal agencies
d. Media
e. Educational Institutions
f. Interest Groups

C-20

2. Newsletter Contents:
a. Focus on NCRI/CZM topics
b. Reports
c. Studies
d. Hearings
e. Data bases

3. *Workshops Conduct and training (Information transfer, planning,
and decision making)

*(limited by legislative timeframes to develop positions and
voice concerns from local publics)

II. Bottom-up planning on general issues:

1. Use Local Coastal Plans (LCPs)?

2. -Dealing with broad issues - "Gorda Ridge" _vs some future unknown
find

3. Programmatic process tougher than specific projects where "players"
identifiable

4. High tech. approach and study development - loss of local level
input in the past

5. Presentation of the present and future issues to the public to
enable informed public involvement

6. Is consistency between local publics and, thereafter, planning
process a good goal - does diversity increase success?

IV. Interstate CZM Plan

1. Is such a plan with bottom-up planning

2. What are interstate CZM goals
a. respect local diversity
b. encourage information sharing on data, processes, etc.

3. Include industry, fishing, military, etc. needs and requirements

V. OCS Industry Issues

1. Mining

2. Oil drilling

3. Oil transportation

C-21

BROAD TOPICS

I. Territorial Sea

1. State sovereignity - legal authority

2. Consistency between state jurisdictions

II. Oil Spills/Transportation

1. Industry capabilities

2. Local, State, and Federal capabilities

3. Private organizations

4. Parks/Resource areas

III. Database

1. cis

2. Communication, access to data

EXPANSION QF TOPICS

I. State sovereignity - Territorial Sea

1. Federal/State Conflicts/authorities

2. Consistency for users (lease/permits)

3. Litigation (California Territorial Sea)

4. New legislation at the State level for OCS policy

5. Interjurisdictional between states, for example, seabed mining
operation

6. Local forums on Ocean Policy

(An aside: II. PLANNINC PRINCIPLES/OBJECTIVES

1. Local diversity

2. Local technical/planning participation and initiative

3. Flexible/adaptable process

4. Accountability)

C-22

7. Joint hearing on policy formulation

8. Consistent process/management objectives which sets goals at local
levels

9. Identify differences between local values and goals regarding
ocean priorities

II. Oil Spill/Transportation

1. Define risk and response limitations and capabilities

2. Who has responsibility/authority or who should have the:
a. authority
b. responsibility
c. capability

3. NCRI could make sure that the information learned in Alaska spill
is available to other states developing plans through forums, workshops,
and bibliographies

III. Data base sharing (see previous discussion on newsletter)

WORKSHOP 3: Coastal wetlands and estuaries, shore protection from
hazards, potential sea level rise, etc., and general coastal development.

Presented by Ann Notthoff - Natural Resources Defense Council

Participants:

Ken Collier - Department of Parks and Recreation
Steve Eabry - Morro Bay Task Force
Ron Flick - Department of Boating and Waterways
Tom Knepher - Morro Bay Friends of the Estuary
Bob Radovich - Department of Fish and Came
Bill Travis - Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission

PROBL :

1. The dominant problem is the overlapping of agency jurisdictions.

ISSUES:

1. Wetland protection is not an articulated goal

2. The difficulty in defining a wetland, definition differs by agency

3. We must look at the bigger picture in the wetland issue which
would e*xtend the boundaries of the coastal zone to include watersheds and
upland areas.

C-23

IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS:

1. Communication problems - Department of Fish and Came coordinates
with the CA Coastal Commission, however, commissioners ignore professional
advice.

2. The creation of more citizen groups has pressured elected
officials, but as a result there has been the withering away of the
environmental professional goal.

3. The Dept. of Fish and Came is listened to but not definitive - COE
manual problematic for California agencies

4. There is not enough money to actively protect wetland areas.

5. Relevance to other Pacific Coast states:
a. In California the intensity of wetland use is very
controversial because this property is big $

6. What institutional steps need to be taken to address the problem?:
a. Extend the coastal zone to include whole watersheds, not just
the "wet" areas.
b. Although existing wetland protection laws are adequate, the
effectiveness is lost in the implementation process.
C. Oftentimes, the factoring of environmental costs in resource
use decisions works against resource protection.
d. Focus on restoration rather than protection

RESEARCH NEEDS AND CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Find a way for better communication

2. Find a way to prevent degradation and restoration will not be
necessary

3. Dynamics of each wetland/watershed system are different

4. Consider the benefits from coastal wetlands with regards to
commercial fisheries

5. Consider the impact of watershed problems in one state upon
another

6. The LCP initially called for watershed protection - why not now?

C-24

WORKSHOP 4: Building state capacity in ocean and coastal management.
Dealing with multiple use conflicts.

Presented by: Jim Burns - California Coastal Commission

Participants:

Eugenia Laychak - Fisheries Consultant
Rodney R. McInnis - National Marine Fisheries Service
Masi Okasaki - NOAA/OCRM
John Saurenman - Deputy Attorney General
Susan Wade - Environmental Affairs

PROBLEMS:

1. Issues are not being addressed adequately

2. No state leadership in ocean management

3. Overlapping jurisdictions

4. Little coordination and communication between agenices

5. Some statutes are unclear

STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSE:

State:

1. AB 2000 (Farr) California Resources Management Act

2. SB 1482 (Keene) Oil Spill Response Plan

3. SB 1500 (Hart) Clean Oceans Act

4. Initiative (VandeKamp, McCarthy, and Hayden) would address ocean
water- quality and oil spill contingency planning

Federal:

1. Reauthorization of the CZMA

2. Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fisheries Act

PROBLEM AREAS:

1. Overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions

2. Clarification of state and federal statutes

3. Identify the states' role/rights

4. Water quality problems

C-25

5. Uses conflicts between the following:
a. Fisheries/Energy Development
b. Recreation
c. Waste Disposal
d. Tourism
e. Transportation
f. Aquaculture
g. etc.

6. Air quality problems

7. Shoreline erosion

8. Future sea level rise

9. Resource management

10. Economic development

In order to begin to solve these problems the leadership needs to
better define the problems to resolve the differing perceptions as to the
urgency of the problems.

11. Adequate information is lacking in the following areas:
a. Status of resources - resource abundance (e.g., modelling
fisheries)
b. Economic modelling
c. Forecasting
d. Changing public opinion

12. Decisions are being made without the necessary information
time and cost must be considered.

13. Many decisions are not being made that need to be made.

14. The need for leadership to provide:
a. coordination
b. communicatiorf
c. education
d. representation on regional and interagency bodies
e. flexibility to respond to changing conditions and values

WHAT INSTITUTIONAL S:[EPS NEED TO BE TAKEN?:

State

1. State policies need to be articulated in statute and by the
Governor

2. A person in the Executive Branch needs to be identified to
coordinate the state's effort in ocean management.

C-26

3. Staff time needs to be allocated to the task of coordinating the
state's effort

4. A work group that provides coordination, suggests policy and
program priorities

5. At the state/local level there should be workshops to keep local
government informed, provide technical assistance, and hear and respond to
local concerns.

Federal

1. There should be a similar federal effort to provide coordination
within the states

PRIORITY NEEDS:

1. Develop a California Ocean Plan with; goals, values, and policy
statements.

2. Develop a Pacific Coast coordinating group

3, Provide for dispute resolution

4. A management mechanism should be established based on the state
plan.

WORKSHOP _a: Strengthening coastal/ocean industries in California and
increasing their competitiveness in Pacific Rim affairs (e.g., insuring
predictability in public processes, developing standardized state policies
and procedures on a regional basis to encourage investment, etc.). This
group also. discussed issues related to coastal community economic
development.

Presented by: Don Lollock - Department of Fish and Game

Participants:

Nat Bingham - PCFFA
Biliana Cicin-Sain - Ocean and Coastal Policy Center
D. Chamberlin - ARCO
Mike McCollum - Department of Fish and Came
Cordon Snow - State Resources Agency

PROBLEM AREAS:

1. Shipping/Commerce

2. Commercial/Sport Fishing and Markets

3. Oil and Gas

4. Mining

C-27

PROBLEM AREAS DEFINED AND NEEDS

I. Shipping/Commerce

Planning

1. Dredging and safe spoil disposal - the need for proper
navigational channels and facilities - the question of what to do with
spoil
a. More information and research needed in this area
b. Need for resolving conflicts early before they become big
ticket items

2. Need to keep Port development up to date and competitive;
includes, providing facilities for sport/commercial fishing

3. Maintain public trust of commerce, navigation and fisheries.

4. More state over-view of Port development - (there is no statewide
consistent overview or policy - Chapter 10).

5. Southern California is very dynamic - Northern California is not
Therefor, study the feasibility of using older facilities for fishing
needs.

6. Need to avoid duplicative expenditures towards facility
development - Balance regional development within the state.

II. Commercial/Sport Fishing

Planning

1. Facilities should be provided in Port and Marina development for
both sport and commercial fishing

2. Preserve the local way of life for Californians whose income is
dependent upon small family oriented fishing businesses - try not to
destroy the small fisherman by overdeveloping large fishing companies.

3. Resolve Oil/Gas conflicts - do not promote the buying out of
fisheries, instead, replace and develop new gear, etc.

4. Develop new fishing industries, (ie., salmon and sea urchin trade
to Japan).

5. Assure constant access to fishing resources

6. Assure renewability through proper management and habitat
protection.

7. Investigate and seek resolution of any resources problems (ie.,
High Seas - gill netting issue, other foreign fishing - U.S. State
Department jurisdiction).

C-28

8. Problem of pollution, toxics and contamination

9. Stress the future of a regional commercial fishing industry

III. Tourism

1. Fishing facilities can be attractive if they are clean, safe and
accomondating - Tourism industry and the state could promote fishing.

2. Development can be both negative and positive for tourism.

IV. Oil and Gas

1. Oil and gas developmet has a place, but there needs to be an
emphasis on energy conservation efforts.

2. Resolve conflicts with other uses

3. Avoid buy out of fisheries, develop new or replacement gear

4. Develop Oil Spill Response Plan

Needs:

a. better equipment
b. better plans
c. increased training especially on the high seas
d. coordination within jurisdictions
MMS - below surface
NMFS - above the surface
EPA - water quality
State programs

V. Mining (see oil and gas)

CONCLUSION

1. Need to be careful about unneccessary or overregulation, because
each regulation was established to stop a conflict there must be constant
reinterpretation as needs change.

2. Resolve conflicts early

3. Need to educate future generations about the environment and its
protection

4. Coastal needs are not static but evolving for the various
resources and activities.

C-29

5. Need to maintain a strong sport and commercial fishing industry
supported by facilities, with resource management, with a pollution free
environment, with clean fish and habitats, in order to assure full
renewability of living marine resources.

6. Good planning, early resolution of issues, meaningful committments
to avoid, mitigate, or otherwiase offset impacts should result in more
certainty and should facilitate the issuance of permits for eligible
projects.

7. A standing non-regulatory Task Force or Clearinghouse of
government and private concerns is needed to exchange concerns.

8. Take care of toxics and contamination

If these suggestions are applied then tourism will benefit from
the successes of other ocean/coastal activities.

C-30

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

DRAFT FOR-COMMENT

SECTION 309 PROJECT ONortheast Pacific Ocean
Regional Interstate Coastal Zone Management Plan"

Summary of Oregon Interstate Coastal Zone Management Workshop,
May 10, 1989, Salem, Oregon
by Richard Hildreth, Principal Investigator

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the discussions at a workshop held
pursuant to the above 309 project on May 10, 1989. The workshop
announcement, agenda, and participants list are attached as
Exhibits A, B, and C to this report. Also attached as background
information.is a list of 309 projects funded in the Northeast
Pacific region from 1985 through 1988 (Exhibit D). Additional
projects have been proposed and funded during 1989. The purpose
of this' project and workshop are to develop near-term and longer
term priorities for 309 funding in the region. The remainder of
this report summarizes the general and topic specific discussions
at the workshop.

309 PLAN ING-AND-L?ROCESS

Oregon state agencies have had difficulties getting into the
309 funding cycle on a timely basis in coordination with relevant
agencies in other states in the region. None of the 309 projects
recently funded (see Exhibit D) are integrated into agency
operations; generally, they are research reports or plans.
Designing 309 projects that can be made integral to an agency's
ongoing operations is a tremendous challenge worthy of further
discussion at this project's regional workshop.

Another problem for state agencies in the 309 funding
process is the 10 percent matching funds requirement. It is
significantly less than the 306 50 percent matching requirement,
but still can cause problems. It was suggested that the 10
percent match is an overall regional requirement such that
projects with more than 10 percent match can assist undermatched
projects in meeting the requirement.

The plan to be produced by this project was analogized to a
capital improvements program which would spell out needs and

C-31
OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW CENTER - SCHOOL OF LAW - EUGENE, OR 97403-1221 - TELEPHONE (503) 68&3845

4nElmalOpportanity.,4pmdtive,4ciianInititation

sources*of funding, including but not limited to the 309 program.
other funding sources to be included in the plan are exemplified
by Coastal Zone Management Act section 306 and the Minerals
Management Service Environmental Studies program. 309 funding
uncertainties do suggest that 309 funds be used for start-up
rather than ongoing operations support in most circumstances.
The plan ultimately produced by this project should include both
an ongoing evaluation mechanism as well as an update process to
allow adjustment of the plan for future, unanticipated
developments.
The different types of projects eligible for 309 funding
were reviewed with shared problems in contiguous interstate ocean
and coastal areas being identified as the top priority, followed
by common coastal management problems present in more than one
state in the region which one state may tackle as a demonstration
project. Federal-state coordination qualifies for 309 support,
and the ispecial status of the South Slough National Estuarine
Reserve in the region's 309 funding picture was noted.

1989 Oregon Senate Bill 1152 if enacted would mandate that
Oregon state agencies Ocoordinate to the maximum extent
practicable" their development of: (1) coastal and ocean
information systems; (2) oil spill response plans; (3) fish catch
monitoring systems; and (4) management systems for ocean areas
adjacent to coastal cliffs and offshore rocks and islands within
the National Wildlife Refuge System, with the adjacent states of
.Washington and California and federal agencies. Such
coordination could be carried out with support of the 309
program.

COASTAL WETLANDS

Previous 309 projects in the region have not emphasized
wetlands (see Exhibit D). There seemed to be a broad state
agency consensus that wetlands were an important area for
interstate coordination through the 309 program. Identified
needs regarding wetlands included: (1) basic research, e.g.,
tectonic influences on wetlands, potential sea level rise
impacts; (2) projects related to mitigation as a management
technique, including monitoring mitigation projects for "successff
as distinguished from compliance; (3) demonstrating new wetlands
management techniques; (4) identifying wetlands of regional
significance for preservation including acquisition; and (5)
interstate and federal-state information sharing regarding such
wetlands. With four key federal agencies recently having agreed
to a federal wetlands delineation manual, and Ono net lossO
setting in as federal wetlands policy, the time seems right for
an interstate effort in the region to build regional uniformity
on a federal-state and interstate basis. one possible starting
point is the individual state responses to the federal Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, Public Law 99-645, which amended

C-32

the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to require a
wetlands component in each Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan. California Department of Parks and Recreation,
California Wetlands (1988) is California's response to that
mandate. See also Washington Department of Ecology, Washington
Wetlands: 1988 Washinaton Wetlands Study Report (1988) (2
volumes).

COASTAL-WATER QUALITY

Past 309 projects (see Exhibit D) have emphasized the
Columbia River as the region's only significant interstate
estuary. Several of the Columbia River projects have addressed
water quality issues. The 1986 project "Organic Waste High
Energy Ecosystems" illustrates the use of 309 funds for a
"common" water quality issue in the region, management of
discharges from pulp and paper mills.

Oregon and Washington may soon nominate the Columbia River
estuary up river to Bonneville Dam for designation as an estuary
of national significance under the federal Environmental
Protection Agency's National Estuary Program (NEP). Acceptance
of the nomination would bring $150,000 for preparation of a
designation package, and designation could bring a total of
approximately $1 million over four years for planning and
management. It seemed clear that a 309 role with respect to the
Columbia River would remain even if the Columbia River were so
designated.

Oregon's Coquille River also is the location for a pilot
project pursuant to EPA's Near Coastal Waters Initiative, part of
EPA's overall assessment of the status and trends of the nation's
coastal waters, including ocean waters within state boundaries.
A pending 309 proposal in the region would examine the respective
roles and relationships of the various federal initiatives
regarding coastal water quality.

Future roles for the 309 program with regard to the Columbia
River include; (1) monitoring of Columbia River-water quality;
(2) meeting the common information needs of Oregon and Washington
with respect to future development projects on the Columbia
River, e.g., dioxin discharges from pulp and paper mills; (3)
improved consistency between the Oregon and Washington point
source discharge regulatory programs with respect to the Columbia
River. Other potential 309 water quality roles include
continuation of coastal water quality pilot projects such as the
Coquille River one whose funding is due to expire in September of
1990 and improving the water quality assessment capabilities of
states in the region. A recent California effort other ocean
water-quality managers in the region should review is California
State Water Resources Control Board, ralifornia ocean Plan (1988)
(2 volumes).

C-33

9HORE PROTECTION AND-SEA LEVEL RISE

Current and proposed 309 projects in the region include work
in this area. The recent El Nino had affects throughout the
region, including significant affects on ocean and bay
shorelines. Global warming and associated sea level rise could
have similar affects throughout the region. The Oregon
Governor's Global Warming Task Force has concluded that coastal
Oregon as distinguished from inland Oregon would be the most
affected by predicted trends in global warming. At least two
state coastal management agencies in the region, California's
BCDC, and Washington's Department of Ecology, have or are
beginning to build assumptions about sea level rise into their
planning and permitting programs. The Corps of Engineers
continues work on shoreline construction practices and FEMA, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, continues administration of
the federal flood insurance program. Through September 30, 1989,
that program includes the possibility of advanced payments to
insured homeowners to relocate structures threatened with damage
prior to any injury being suffered.

At a minimum, the 309 program could continue to play a role
in funding research relevant to the information needs of coastal
managers throughout the region with respect to global warming and
associated sea level rise, including information regarding
potential impacts on the region's wetlands. A purpose of the 309
funded efforts in this area could be to identify coastal areas in
the region that need structural solutions versus those that do
not need structural solutions for protection from erosional
events'. As a follow up to the Corps' work and related efforts on
coastal construction practices, standards could be developed for
application by local governments throughout the region. The
Coastal-Managenent journal plans a series of articles on local
responses to global change in future issues.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT IMPLICATION OF OFFSHORE MINERALS AND
HYDROCARBON DEVELOPMENT

Past 309 projects in the region have included significant
work on offshore resources management issues. State and regional
information needs regarding offshote oil and gas development have
been identified in the 1988 and 1989 reports of the Washington
Ocean Resources Assessment project, the 1988 studies of the
Washington oil Spill Damage Assessment Project, and the 1988
report of the Washington Joint Legislative Committee on Marine
and Ocean Resources. Concerns in Oregon include coordinating
ocean management pursuant to 309 with Oregonts ocean resources
management planning task force effort whose July 1988 Into-rim
Report also identifies research needs. With respect to 309
funded research in this area, a major task is defining the role
of 309 with respect to the Minerals Management Service's

C-34

Environmental Studies program. Workshop participants generally
felt that given funding uncertainties, no assumption should be
made in the 309 program that scheduled MMS environmental studies
relevant to the region will in fact be undertaken. Rather,
projects proposed for environmental studies funding should be
reviewed for possible 309 funding, with "big ticketff oceanography
projects generally left to the environmental studies program.
Many proposed MMS socioeconomic projects would seem suitable for
309 consideration. specific needs identified at the workshop for
309 funding include research on marine birds and mammals and
development of a regional oil spill response capability. The
latter'could include common map sets, protocols for bird cleanup,
and research on micro-circulation of the ocean off the Oregon and
Washington coasts to help guide oil spill response efforts. It
was suggested that further studies of the effects of seismic
exploration activities on larva and fish were not needed.
Studies of the onshore impacts of particular offshore resource
development initiatives were felt to be too speculative at this
point in time. Generally, it was felt that 309 funding should
not be driven by particular oil and gas or mineral development
timetables offshore, but instead should be used to improve
multiple-use, management capabilities both offshore and onshore.

A major new direction for 309 in the region following up on
this last point would be to use 309 funds in support of the
Pacific Northwest OCS Task Force recently established with
representatives from Oregon, Washington, Indian tribes, and the
MMS regarding oil and gas development in federal waters off
Oregon and Washington, the federal-state task force formed by MMS
and Oregon regarding placer deposits in federal and state waters
off southern Oregon, and the cooperative Alaska-MMS effort
regarding placer deposits in state and federal waters of western
Alaska. Such a use of 309 funds could justify increased 309
appropriations, and perhaps line-item appropriations in support
of specific research (as occurred for the Gorda Ridge task force)
identified through those federal-state efforts and the 309
program. Statutory authority for use of 309 funds to support
those federal-state efforts is quite explicit in section 309
which refers to federal-state consultation procedures for the
identification, examination, and cooperative resolution of
mutual problems with respect to marine areas which affect the
coastal zone.

With respect to black sands placer deposits, previous
experience in Washington with leasing, permitting, and
exploration in and near the Columbia River mouth also was noted.

No suggestions were madefor using 309 funds in connection
with regional fisheries management. It was felt that the North
Pacific and Pacific Fisheries Management Councils already provide
for sufficient consultation with the states in management of
several major fisheries. For fisheries not managed by those

C-35

councils, whether any role existed for 309 over and above such
alternatives as the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act was not
discussed.

INFORMATION SHARING NEEDS AND CAPABILITIES
There appears to be a continuing need to bring coastal zone
managers in each state up to date on management issues and
approaches in the other states in the region. This information
need could be met through newsletters, computer networks, and
information centers, and tied together periodically with a
regional conference focussed on state experiences with common and
shared management issues.

With respect to computerized information exchange, Alaska,
Oregon, and Washington appear to be investing in compatible GIS
systems. The current coverage of the systems in each state with
respect to offshore areas is unclear. Because five different
systems are used in California, the situation there is more
complex. However, it was pointed out that incompatibility is not
a major barrier to information exchange; rather, additional steps
to overcome the incompatibility must be taken with some resulting
time delays in data access.

MARINE-DEBRIS

As outlined in Exhibit E attached to this report, U.S.
international treaty obligations and federal law have made the
disposal and handling of marine debris a major issue in the
region with significant interstate features. Oregon's Department
of Environmental Quality is planning to put together an action
plan modeled on the October 1988 Washington Marine Plastic Debris
Task Force Action Plan report. 309 funding could be used to
encourage the provision of common facilities needed by mobile
mariners throughout the region, the use of common signs in ports
throughout the region, and other actions in support of what would
basically be an interstate effort to encourage recycling of
marine debris. As a complement to those efforts, 309 funding
could support the distribution of information concerning the
marine debris problem and its solution. Apparently, marine
debris monitoring already is being carried out on a regional
basis. 309 participation in the marine debris issue appears to
offer an opportunity to deal with a problem that has a solution,
and for which an end is in sight. 309 marine debris efforts in
the region should be coordinated to pick up where a $161,000
Saltonstall-Kennedy grant involving two ports in each of the four
states in the region leaves off.

OIHER REGIONAL ISSUES

Workshop participants discussed other issues of potential
interest to the 309 program briefly. At least from the Oregon

C-36

perspective, problems in aquaculture facility siting such as
salmon net-pen rearing were felt to be an issue of secondary
interest for 309 purposes. In Oregon and California, the space
requirements for such operations exceed the space available in
locations where such operations would otherwise be permissible.
A brief discussion of public access as a regional 309 issue
focussed on questions of too much public access to sensitive
resources and the use of public education programs like the one
carried out on the Washington state ferries.

C-37

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

ANNOUNCEMENT AND INVIZATION --TO -INTABSTATIS,

COASTAL ZONE MANAGL74ENT WORKSHO

On Wednesday, May 10, 19L9 beginning at 9:00 A.M. a workshop
will be held at the Association of OXecon CoMnties Conference
Room, 1201 Court-Street N.E., Salem (telephone 585-8351), across
the street from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development's Salem offices. Staff from relevant state, federal,
local, and academic entities are receiving invitations to the
workshop.
A principle purpose of the workshop is to identify short-
term and long-term projects regarding coastal zone management
issues with interstate implications for potential funding under
the federal Coastal Zone Management Act section 309 interstate
grants program. The program is administered for the four west
coast states of Oregon, Washington, California, and Alaska by the
National Coastal Research Institute (NCRI) in Newport, Oregon.
The total funds available for west coast projects can range from
$250,000 to $500,000 per year, with individual projects generally
not exceeding $100,000. The workshop is being held pursuant to a
309 grant to four investigators, one in each of the four states,
as described in the enclosed four page project OVERVIEW document.

Your participation in the workshop is requested to aid in
the identification of projects in Oregon which would qualify for
309 funding, or support under other programs, e.g., the Minerals
Management Service Environmental Studies program, and be so
identified in an interstate coastal zone management plan for the
four-state region. Suggestions on how to reorient federal
research programs toward Oregon and regional coastal management
needs also are sought for inclusion in the project plan. Needs
that are shared by more than one state in the region or involve
an issue to which more than one state in the region is linked
physically, economically, or otherwise are of special interest.

To organize discussion at the workshop, the enclosed
WORKSHOP AGENDA is scheduled around some of the broad topic areas
identified by the project's four investigators as containing
specific potentially priority projects with interstate
implications. Persons wishing to speak on particular topics
within that framework or to suggest additional topics for
workshop discussion should contact me at 686-3866. In addition,
persons with specific recommendations are invited to prepare
brief papers for discussion at the workshop, or if they are
unable to attend the workshop, to submit those papers directly to

. C-38

OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW CENTER - SCHOOL OF LAW - EUGENE, OR 97403-1221 - TELE11HONE (503) 6W-3345
d.l."r-10M Ity. .0ri-mi- .4, t." I
)=VTT1A1_T A

me. In any case, a follow-up questionnaire will be mailed to all
persons receiving this invitation regardless of whether they are
able to attend the workshop. Workshop and questionnaire
recommendations will be factored into a four state regional
workshop (currently scheduled for Thursday and Friday, September.
7 and 8 at a west coast location to be announced) at which a
coastal zone management plan for the region will be developed.
Further details on that regional workshop will be mailed to all
of this workshop's invitees as soon as they are available.
Another important purpose of the project is to identify gaps
or duplication in state and federal agency responsibilities with
respect to important coastal zone management issues in the
@egion. Thus workshop discussions and brief papers on those
issues are welcomed as well. Because the ocean side of Oregon
coastal zone management has been intensely addressed in the 1987
Territorial Sea Management Study and the 1987 Oregon Senate Bill
6-30 ocean resources management task force process, it would seem
useful to focus this projectfs attention on state and federal
agency responsibilities with respect to issues not covered by
that study and task force process. Finally, the project
investigators have been requested by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to examine current computer
capabilities for data and information exchange regarding coastal
zone management between the four states in the region. Thus
workshop invitees with experience in such interstate information
exchange are encouraged to share their perspectives at the
workshop as well.

With the legislature in session and other commitments,
scheduling is difficult. Feel free to attend whatever parts of
the workshop you can. Please RSVP your regrets only to 686-
3845; otherwise, I look forward to a productive workshop with you
in Salem on may 10. Lunch catered by the Old World Deli of Salem
will be provided as a small thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,

Dick Hildreth
Co-Director, University of oregon
Ocean and Coastal Law Center
Project Principal Investigator

RGH:nf

C-39

,tO.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

WORKSHOP-AGE

Interstate Coastal Zone Management Workshop

Association of Oregon Counties Conference Room

1201 Court Street N.E., Salem, Wednesday, May 10, 1989

8:30 AM: Informal introductions and discussions, with
coffee provided.

9:00 AM: Perspectives on the 309 interstate grants program,
Dick Mathews, DLCD coastal program manager and 309
coordinator.

9:15 AM: Overview of 309 project to develop a ONortheast
Pacific ocean Regional Interstate Coastal Zone
Management Plan,".Dick Hildreth,,.University of
Oregon

9:30 AM: Research needs and management issues regarding
COASTAL WETLANDS and ESTUARIES.

10:30 AM: Break

10:45 AM: Research needs and management issues regarding
COASTAL WATER QUALITY including nearshore ocean
waters.

11:30 AM: Review of morning discussions led by Dick
Hildreth.

12 Noon: Deli lunch provided'to all workshop participants.

1:00 PM: Research needs and management issues regarding
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND SEA LEVEL RISE.

2:00 PM: Research needs and management issues
regarding the ONSHORE IMPLICATIONS OF
MINERALS AND OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT OFFSHORE
in state and federal waters.

2:45 PM: Break

C-40

OCEAN AND COASTAL I-AW CENTER - SCHOOL OF LAW EUGENE, OR 97403-1221 * TELEPHONE (503) 686-3815

A. P".41 A, f- 1"'tow-
X

3:00 PM: Co .. puterized INTERSTATE AND FEDERAL-STATE COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION EXCHANGE on the west
coast.

3:45 PM: Discussion of other priority projects and
management issues.

4:30 PM: Workshop wrap-up by Dick Mathews/Dick Hildreth.

5:00 PM: Workshop concludes.

C-41

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Interstate CZM Workshop, MAY 10, 1989

Name Agency

Dick Mathews DLCD
Bob Bailey DLCD/Oceans
Greg McMurray NCRI

Don Oswalt DLCD

Steve Chesser USACE, Portland District

Krystyna Wolniakowski DEQ
Scott Smith SSC/GIS-DOE BLD.

Susan Hanna OSU/Dept. Ag. & Resource Econ.
Fran Recht Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission
Mark Darienzo OSU/College of Oceanography
Frank McDonald USACE

Phil Jackson OSU/Dept. of Geography
Kathryn Howd OSU/MRM Program, College of Oceanography
John B. Smith Minerals Management Service
Nancy Rockwell Dept. of Energy

Bob Cortright DLCD

David Livengood UO/Environmental Studies
Chuck Rosenfeld OSU/Geography
Dennis Olmstead Dept. of Geology

John Beaulieu DOGAMI

Dee Chamberlain ARCO

Curt Peterson OSU/College of Oceanography

C-42
EXHIBIT C

NCRI REGIONAL CZM 309 PROJECT DIRECTORY

CZ85 Columbia River Estuary Interstate Management Plan (Fox, 1986)
COMPLETED

CZ85 Interstate Living Marine Resource Information Project: Marine
Fishes and Invertebrates (Bottom, 1986-1987) COMPLETED

CZ86 Columbia River Estuary Interstate Management (Fox, 1986-1987)
COMPLETED

CZ86 Sea Otter Population Assessment and Ecology (Jeffries, 1986-1988)
COMPLETED

CZ86 Effects of Acoustic Signals on Crustaceans (Knaster, 1986-1988)
COMPLETED

CZ86 organic Wastes in High Energy Nearshore Oceanic Ecosystems: Fates
and Effects (Gonor, 1986-1988) COMPLETED

CZ87 Columbia River Estuary Hazardous Waste Spill Contingency Plan
(Fox, 1987-1988) COMPLETED

CZ87 Feasibility of Remote Sensing to Identify the Aquaculture Poten-
tial of Coastal 'Waters (Paust, 1987-1988) COMPLETED

CZ87 Estimation of the Carrying Capacity of the Coastal Environment for
Juvenile Salmon (Francis, 1987-1989)

CZ87 Fishery Resource Mapping (Starr, 1987-1989)

CZ88 Regional Sediment Dymnamics and Shoreline Stability in Littoral
Cells of the Pacific Northwest (Peterson, 1988-)

CZ88 Columbia River Estuary Interstate Management: Regulatory Frame-
work for Evaluating Sediment Qua@ity in the Columbia River Estu-
ary (Barnes, 1988-)

CZ88 Comprehensive Regional Ocean and Coastal Resources Management
Planning (Hildreth, 1989-)

CZ88 Improving State and Federal Ocean Governance Capabilities in the
Northeast Pacific (Hildreth, 1988-)

C-43
9he /7- 0

Marine Debris Issues
Interstate Coastal Zone Management Workshop
May 10, 1989, Salem., Oregon

DISCUSSION POINT
The marine debris problem Is an Interstate problem which
could benefit from a regional management approach provided
by Coastal Zone Management Act Section 309 funding.

THE MARINE DEBRIS PROBLEM:
Marine debris causes hazards to wildlife, to vessel safety,
and litters beaches throughout the west coast. Additionally
Indications are that the economic costs associated with
marine debris (though these have not been systematically
studied) may be high: fifty eight of the 90 West Coast
fishermen (64%) surveyed at the Fish Expo in Seattle in 1987
reported having experienced vessel problems due to plastic
debris. The associated costs for both repair and lost
fishing time totaled to $110,780. The continued decline of
threatened animal populations, such as the northern fur
seals, could result in closure of productive fishing areas
in the Bering Sea, fished by fishermen from OR, WA, and AK.

NEW LAW EFFECTS ALL COASTAL STATES THRU THEIR PORTS & DOCKS:
The recently enacted international treaty Annex V of MARPOL,
creates impacts on the coastal zones of all states. The
treaty prohibits the disposal of all plastic materials into
the ocean and restricts the disposal of other materials at
sea (see attachment) and requires that all commercial ports
and docks provide "adequate refuse reception facilities", so
that mariners can conveniently dispose of the retained
refuse. If ports or docks fail to provide these facilities
vessels can be denied entry to the port (by the Coast Guard
which is in charge of this treaty's enforcement). Of
special concern to west coast ports is the requirement that
foreign food-contaminated refuse must be sterilized or
incinerated before it can be disposed of. Commercial
sterilization/incineration facilities may be cost
prohibitive for the smaller ports.

A REGIONAL APPROACH TO MONITORING THE MARINE DEBRIS PROBLEM
HAS ALREADY BEEN INITIATED:
A regional approach to monitoring the changes in marine
debris has been initiated through a data base coordinated by
NOAA and the Center for Marine Conservation to collect beach
clean-up information from around the country. The progress
of work performed under 309 to deal with the problem might
be indicated by this monitoxing effort.

C-44
/ 7 "' E @ I

HOW COULD 309.FUNDS BE USED TO IMPLEMENT MARPOL ANNEX V?
some Ideas for discussion:

NEED FOR UNIFORM REFUSE COLLECTION SYSTEM
There is a great need for uniformity in the refuse
collection system established In each port, so that mariners
can be assured that no matter where they land, they can
quickly and easily handle their refuse disposal needs.
For example, each port which serves commercial net fishermen
should have a designated net reception area accessible by
the vessels or a clearly defined net disposal procedure.
The use of the color blue to designate refuse reception
areas and recycling facilities has been encouraged
throughout the west coast in order to increase the
recognition of such facilities.

NEED TO ENCOURAGE RECYCLING
The increased amount of solid waste expected to be returned
to port due to this law will put an extra burden on the
landfills of the coastal states. The in-port recycling of
vessel related refuse such as cardboard, nets, metal, wood,
and glass will reduce the stress on landfills but must be
encouraged and coordinated with the recycling efforts of the
coastal communities. Having uniform recycling signs and/or
bins available for use by each state's ports and docks would
encourage the rapid establishment of such facilities and
their uniformity throughout the region. Of special interest
.is the coordination of an 1nter-state net collection and
recycling/reuse system.

NEED FOR STATE AND INTER-STATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
The management of marine debris Is a problem shared by all
four coastal states, and one that has yet only been studied
as a managment Issue by Washington (California has recently
awarded a contract for the development of a state marine
debris action plan, similar to Washington's. AK is working
to,ward an understanding of the various agency roles through
their Division of Governmental Coordination). In Oregon
there is, as of yet, no coordinated marine debris action
plan. In all states so far, no lead agency has been
designated to deal with marine debris Issue, to coordinate
educational efforts or to inter-state coordination efforts.
There is a need to identify these entities and to encourage
joint planning and support.

NEED TO BROADLY,SYSTEMATICALLY-DISTRIBUTE MARINE DEBRIS INFO
Though NOAA has established a marine debris Information
office to handle requests for information, funds for the
mass production and dissemination of marine debris
information to all west coast boaters and fishermen (e.g.
through vessel licenses, permits, & registrations) or to
other mariners are not available. (Some efforts have been
made by both WA and OR--WA has distributed information
"Pollution solutions" through the Dept. of Licensing, OR has
Included marine debris brochure In new boater sales packet)
but no comprehensive educational effort has yet been
launched though educational materials.' and public service
annoucements are available. The placement of signs in all
launch ramp areas and ports to make mariners aware of the
problem and the law would be of great benefit.

OTHER NEEDS/IDEAS? C-45

June 20, 1989
Summary of Oregon Interstate CZM Workshop

1. Coastal Wetlands

a. Research needs including: tectonic influence, sea-level rise.
b. Mitigation as management technique and measured by "success" rather than
compliance. Demonstrating new management techniques.
c. Identifying wetlands for preservation and acquisition.
d. Federal-state information sharing.
e. Four Federal Agencies have agreed to wetlands delineation manual and "no
net loss" as federal wetlands policy.
f. Individual state responses to federal Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986 - which requires a wetlands component in each Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan.

III. Coastal Water Quality

a. Columbia River as the only interstate estuary in past 309 projects.
b. Coquille River as a potential 309 proposal to examine roles and
relationships of federal initiatives regarding coastal water quality.
c. Future roles for 309 for Columbia River: monitoring water quality, meeting
information needs of Oregon and Washington wrt future development projects,
improve consistency between ORE/WA point source discharge regulatory programs.
d. California State Water Resources Control Board - model of state effort.

Ill. Shore Protection and Sea Level Rise

a. Regional effects on ocean and bay shorelin es by recent El Nino.
b. Oregon Governor's Global Warming Task Force determined that coastal Oregon
more susceptible than inland Oregon wrt global warming.
c. Sea level rise assumptions built into planning and permitting programs:
eg. CA - BCDC, WA - DOE.
d. Federal efforts - COE (shoreline construction) and FEMA (insurance programs).
e. Future 309 programs to fund research on information needs for coastal
managers throughout region: areas that need structural solutions, develop
standards for application by local governments as a follow up to COE work.

IV. Coastal Management Implication of Offshore Minerals and Hydrocarbon Development

a. Washington ORAP, Joint Select Committee, Oil Spill Damage Assessment Project
examples of significant work on offshore resources management issues.
b. Oregon concerns include coordination of ocean management pursuant to 309
and the Ocean Resources Management Planning Task Force - identification of
research needs.
c. Define role of 309 wrt MMS Environmental Studies Program - suggest that
309 fund socioeconomic projects and MMS/ESP fund "big ticket" oceanography.
d. 309 funding should be use to improve multiple-use management capabilities
both offshore and onshore as opposed to funding driven by single-use
issues, eg. offshore oil and gas or mineral development.
e. 309 funding to support Pacific Northwest OCS Task Force and Alaska-MMS
effort regarding placer deposits in state and federal waters.

C-46

f. Regional fisheries management left to Pacific Fisheries Management Councils.

V. Information Sharing Needs and Capabilities

a. Management issues and approaches need to be exchanged among coastal zone
managers.
b. Use of newsletters, computer networks, information centers, and periodic
regional conferences focusing on state experiences with common and shared
management issues.
c. Compatible GIS system - WA/ORE/AK, whereas California has 5 different systems
in use.

VI. Marine Debris

a. U.S. International treaty obligations and federal law have made disposal
and handling of marine debris a major issue with significant interstate
features.
b. Oregon - DEQ is putting together an action plan modelled after 1988 Washington
Marine Plastic Debris Task Force Action Plan.
c. 309 funding could be used to encourage common facilities, signs and other
actions on a regional basis.
d. Monitoring of marine debris is currently executed on a regional basis.
e. Saltonstall-Kennedy grant involves 2 ports in each of the four states.

Vil. Other Regional Issues

a. Aquaculture facility siting only of secondary importance in Oregon.
b. Public access concerns include too much public access to sensitive areas
and the use of public education programs; eg. WA state ferries.

C-47

Report on Washington State CZM 309 Workshop
June 22, 1989 Sea-Tac Airport

Attendance:

David Aggerholm, Port of Seattle
Bob Butts, Wa. Legislative Staff
Dee Chamberlain, ARCO Environmental Sciences
Mark Freeburg, Natural Resources Consultants
John Gabrielson, EPA, Near Coastal Waters
Bob Goodwin, Washington Sea Grant
Mike Gruber, DNR
Jim Lehman, Chamber of Commerce, Pacific County
Don Peterson, DOE, Shorelands Planning
Chris Platt, Sierra Club
Jim Sayce, Pacific County Planning
Gary Shigenaka, NOAA, Office of Marine Assessment
Terry Swanson, DOE, 309 Coordinator
Mary Lou Mills, WA Department Of Fisheries
Bob Rose, DNR
Marc Hershman, Professor, UW-IMS
Greg McMurray, Deputy Director, NCRI

Purpose -a De Qf Me-e@

The purpose of the in-8tate meeting was to explore how
the CZMA 309 program can help to improve management of coastal
resources in the West Coast region - California,
Oregon, Washington and Alaska. Although the perspective was
regional, we asked what regional information or activities would
be of most help to Washington state and it's problems and
concerns.
Regional CZM issues are those that address shared or
common CZM problems. Shared problems are those that cross
state boundaries or affect two or more states. Examples are
the Columbia River estuary and offshore tanker traffic that
moves between states.
Common problems are more numerous. In one sense all problems
are common ones since each state faces virtually
the same set of coastal issues. However, for some problems
a regional approach would make more sense because:

� Federal policy encourages uniformity among
the states.
� Management problems are very new and there is a high
degree of uncertainty.
� The common problems are of such high priority that action
among states can improve or expedite resolution of the
problem.

C-48

1. Columbia River estuary. This estuary is one of the
clearest examples of a shared coastal zone resource among two of
the coastal states in the region. Because of a pro-
posal that it be designated an "estuary of national sig-
nificance" by EPA, it is getting increased attention from policy
makers. Added attention from the 309 program could support EPA's
efforts. It was noted that the Columbia River has received
considerable scientific and management attention over the years
from a variety of agencies, and that 306 and 309 funds have been
used to support bi-state planning in the past. In comparison,
Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor have received less attention, but
may be more important to Washington's coastal residents.

2. Mitigation. A variety of problems were identified
with the concept and practice of environmental mitigation.
The mitigation Policies in Oregon and Washington differ, and
state-level policies often do not align with those of federal
agencies. Mitigation standards are weak; greater precision is
needed as well as careful evaluation of implementation. Methods
of doing mitigation, such as restoration and wetland creation,
need more research and development. And, the mitigation banking
concept is not well developed. More work is needed in technical
issues,.and in finding ways to fit banking into the current
regulatory system.
A variety of ways to improve mitigation practice were
set forth, some of which could be addressed in the 309 program.
Mitigation in highway proJects and in freshwater areas may
provide models applicable to marine waters. Improved coordination
and information sharing among permitting agencies, and among
permit seekers, could improve the practice. The 309 program could
assist here by providing a continuing education and information
exchange program among practitioners.

3. Non-point sources of pollution. As urbanization in rural
coastal areas continues, problems with water quality will grow
and effects will be felt on shellfish resources, and marine water
quality in general. Increases in non-point sources of pollution
can result from failed septic system, poor drain field siting,
etc. Zoning may not be sufficient in the future. The challenge is
to find ways to control non-point sources while meeting desires
for community development. Since federal law has no "teeth" for
dealing with non-point source pollution, state and local
government must do so. The 309 program may be able to aid in
studying how this could be done.

4. Other water quality and related issues. Four additional
subjects were raised for consideration.
Oregon and Washington both face problems of competition
between the oyster and crab industries, centering on use of

C-49

pesticides in marine waters to eliminate ghost shrimp
populations.
Dumping of shipwater ballast in harbors and estuaries can
introduce unwanted marine species and have detrimental effects.
Use of the Coastal Barriers Resources Act on the West Coast;
to protect relatively undeveloped coastal regions could be a
means to introduce ways to prevent nonpoint sources of pollution.
Offshore seafood processing generates wastes and is becoming
a significant water quality problem. The scope of the problem
needs more research and new technologies may be needed.

Generally, 309 may be an especially appropriate program for
addressing emerging problems common to two or more states where
there is a need for definition and exploration of alternatives.
It was noted, in hindsight, that the problems associated with net
pen salmon aquaculture should have been studied by the four
states about five years ago. Had this been done, the states may
have been better prepared to deal with the issue.

Shore-F-rote-QU-on sand - Sea- leve I ri Fie

Deciding how government should respond to coastal hazard
situations is difficult. Many people accept the risks and are
willing to live with them. Most people are is8ue-specific and
cannot appreciate and accept a long-term preventative strategy.
Hazards are greatest in rural areas where planning capabilities
and funding levels are low. Some resources or areas are highly
vulnerable should sea'-level rise accelerat6:;etland8, hazardous
sites near the shore and dredged materials exposed to water and
likely to erode.
Two strategies were discussed that V be appropriate for 309
attention.
inf hanize-amd di8seminp-t-ip-a- Exchange of
experiences among practitioners in CZM and other programs could
be enhanced. However, funds for out-of-state travel are hard to
obtain. Other mechanisms for exchange are needed.
. Information dissemination to the public is key, so long as
it is issue specific. What are the risks and where are the high
risk zones?
Inve lary- Maps may be needed that show the high risk zones,
and the effects of sea level rise based on certain assumptions.
New forms of maps may be necessary, with particular attention
paid to wetlands. Mandatory disclosure of risk information could
be considered.

sho- and Allocat"a

A key question is how to measure
the adequacy of public access. Is the quantity sufficient? Are
combined sites needed? Is the quality adequate or is better
maintenance, signage and management necessary?
Information on ways to do coastal access could be shown in
handbooks. Ongoing management of access sites may be needed and

C-50

the California Acces8ways experience with non-profits may be
worth studying.
West Coast officials.could consider common access signage
throughout the range&a.PA Interpretation could emphasize
comparable and contrasting coastal features for the West Coast as
a whole.
Ocean beach management may need special attention, for
usage, 8ignage and interpretation of natural features. This might
be approached regionally.
Innovative ways to get public access to public and private
tidelands should be studied.

F_j r
_t.ry_dup2ar_t_,_ Overall 8horeland needs for
commercial fishing fleets, now and in the future, must be
studied. This is a regional issue because fleets change and move
among states easily. Competition with recreational boating for
shore space and fishery resources is severe.

Submeraed lands and water surfape management. Control over
water uses and the issue of water dependency is a common problem
on the West Coast. Comparative study of the ways urban
waterfronts are allocated, through regulation or leasing would
provide useful lessons. Further, the effectiveness of state
mechanisms for dealing with submerged land zoning would be
useful.

AcLuac
_u_Uur_e_ Siting aquaculture facilities continues to be
contentious. Comparison of state mechanisms for dealing with the
problem is needed. A particularly useful role for 309 would be to
ask what are the emerging aquaculture technologies and how can we
prepare in advance to manage the siting and environmental issues?

D_P_mQgr_aPhiao.._ What are the changing human settlement
patterns in coastal areas and how can we better articulate the
planning problems that might arise?

Will new industries seek
-sites in rural coastal areas? What state/local mechanisms are
available to guide these industries since their impacts are
normally regional.
;g ')
devg1QRmen_t,._ There is a high level of
interest in how state and local governments influence offshore
oil decisions, and in the particular management techniques
available to minimize impacts and recover costs. Comparative
study of the following issues would be useful:
* offshore convergence zones where fisheries resource would
be high and damage from spills great
* estuarine buffer zones designed to keep potential spills
from entering estuaries - requires study of exchange phenomenon
at mouth of estuary

C-51

* ways to site offshore platforms that minimize damages and
risks
* fishing gear conflicts with offshore oil equipment and how
to minimize conflict and settle claims
* benefits and costs of mandatory pipeline corridors and
location of onshore facilities
use of lease sale stipulations to assert state interests,
evaluation of stipulations and their implementation
* wAys local government can get the most out of offshore
development

Debate continues about the best
technology for transporting oil. What are the benefits and Costs
of an increase in designated shipping lanes and greater
surveillance? Should use of many tankers be replaced with
pipelines and major oil offloading ports?

One strategy for larger spills is to regionalize
oil 8pill response. Federal and industry developments will
probably lead the way, but state and local input with a regional
perspective may be needed.
For smaller spills, such as those associated with the
transfer of oil from barge to ship and other routine harbor
operations, better management approaches are needed and could be
addressed regionally.

Sitina enexzy-=re-@I-ed Finding the best sites for
shore-ba8ed facilities, such as graving docks, requires
sophisticated planning techniques. Comparative study of
approaches are needed and could be addressed regionally.

Utah minina. At least 3 of the region's states have
. -Qr&.- I
potential for offshore hard mineral mining. What are the economic
and environmental issues likely to arise and how can they be
managed?

ttax-in-e-A-e-hria- Consideration should be given to a regional
approach to management of plastic and other wastes from boats
since the fleets cross state boundaries and enter different
ports. There may be opportunities for standardized facilities,
signage, etc. that improve efficiency and reduce costs.

ALtJ,az-e-s--- A regional atlas for the 200 mile EEZ may be a
useful project. Oregon's atlas project for it's EEZ may be a
useful model.

The measurement and use of cumulative effects in coastal
deci8ion-making needs more development and it is a common
problem. Permit decisions on a project-by-project basis must be
able to account for cumulative effects.

C-52

GIS systems can assist in making coastal decisions. The
systems that are emerging should be studied and ways for them to
"talk" with one another should be explored.

C-53

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX D
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
A
I
I

West Coast Regional Coastal Zone Management Workshop
Asilomar, California
September 10-12, 1989

PARTICIPANTS LIST

Ken Bierley
Oregon Division of State Lands
1600 State Street
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 378-3805

Earle Buckley, Director
NCRI
Hatfield Marine Science Center
2030 S. Marine Science Dr.
Newport, OR 97365
(503) 867-3300
FAX: (503 867-4730

James Burns
California Coastal commission
631 Howard Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-8555

Biliana Cicin-Sain
Ocean and Coastal Policy Center
Marine Science Institute
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
(805) 961-8393
FAX: (805) 961-8016

Deborah Clausen
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry
Anchorage, AK 9951
FAX: (907) 349-1723

Peter Douglas, Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Kurt Frederickson
Division of Governmental Coordination
P.O. Box AW
Juneau, AK 99811

APPENDIX D

Jim Good
Extension/Oceanography
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331

Tom Hawkins
Special Asst. to the Commissioner
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, AK 99510-7005

Marc Hershman
Inst. for Marine Studies, HF-05
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
(206) 545-2469
FAX: (206) 543-4385

Dick Hildreth
School of Law
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1221
(503) 686-3845
FAX: (503) 686-3985

Jon Isaacs
Jon Isaacs & Associates
2418 Forest Park Drive
Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 274-9719 (office)
(907) 279-8900 (home
FAX: (907) 276-6117

Jody Loeffler
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-8555

Don Lollock
Dept. of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Don Oswalt
Dept. of Land Conservation and
Development
1175 Court Street N.E.
Salem, OR 97310-0590
(503) 378-4928

D-2

Don Peterson
Dept. of Ecology
State of Washington (PV-11)
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 438-7424

Liza Riddle
State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612

Dr. James Rote
Joint Committee on Fisheries and
Aquaculture
1414 K Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Jennifer Scholl
ocean and Coastal Policy Center
Marine Science Institute
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
(805) 961-8393
FAX: (805) 961-8016

Mark Silberstein, Program Coordinator
Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine
Research Reserve
P.O. Box 267
Moss Landing, CA 95039
(408) 728-2822

Dr. Gordon Snow
State Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

Terry Swanson
Dept. of Ecology
State of Washington (PV-11)
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 438-7424

Susan 0. Wade
Environmental Affairs
1102 Q Street
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95814

D-3

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

West Coast Regional Coastal Zone Management Workshop
Asilomar, California
September 10-12, 1989

WORKSHOP AGENDA

SUNDAY, September 10

3 P.M. Check into Assigned Lodging through Asilomar
Registration/Administration Building

6-8 P.M. Get Acquainted Catered Barbecue Dinner at
Asilomar Barbecue Area

MONDAY, September 11

7:30-8:30 A.M. Breakfast in Assigned Dining Room at
Asilomar's Crocker-Dining Hall

8:30 A.M. Assemble at Asilomar's Sanderling Conference
Room for Workshop Commencement

8:45 A.M. Welcome and Project Background
Earle Buckley, Director,
National Coastal Research Institute (NCRI)
(draft Plan Section I and Appendix A)

9:00 A.M. Framework for 309 Planning (OCRM 309
Guidance; draft Plan sections II, III, VI,
VII)
Discussion Leader: Dick Hildreth

10:00 A.M. Break for Coffee/Tea

10:15 A.M. Coastal Wetlands, Estuaries, and Nearshore
Waters as Regional Concerns (draft Plan
section IV.A.)
Discussion Leader: Marc Hershman

11:00 A.M. Coastal Hazards: Short Term and Long Term
(draft Plan section IV.B.)
Discussion Leader: Jim Good

OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW CENTER - SCHOOL OF LAW - EUGENE, OR 97403-1221 - TELEPHONE (503) 686-3845

An Equal Oppurtunity, Affirmative Action Institution
D-4

Workshop Agenda
Page 2

12-1 P.M. Lunch in Assigned Dining Room at Crockeg
Dining Hall

1:00 P.M. Reassemble at Sanderling

1:15 P.M. Regional Shoreland Use Allocation Issues
(draft Plan section IV.C.)
Discussion Leader: Jon Isaacs

2:00 P.M. Regional Ocean Resources Management Issues
(draft Plan section IV.D.)
Discussion Leader: Biliana Cicin-Sain

2:45 P.M. Break for Coffee/Lemonade

3:00 P.M. Regional Information Exchange capabilities
and Opportunities (draft Plan section V.)
Discussion Leader: Jon Isaacs

4:00 P.M. AFTERNOON BREAK

6-7 P.M. Dinner in Assigned Dining Room at Crocker
Dining Hall

TUESDAY, September 12

7:30-8:30 A.M. Breakfast in Assigned Dining Room at Crocker
Dining HAJU

8:30 A.M. Reassemble at Sanderling

8: 45-10 A.M. Group Discussion of Alternative Approaches to
a Regional Plan (draft Plan sections VI and
VII)

10-10:15 A.M. Break for Coffee/Tea

10:15-11:30 A.M. Regional Plan Discussions Continued: Priority
Projects and Funding Sources

11:30 A.M.- Break for Check-out by 12 Noon Deadline
12 Noon.

12-1 P.M. Lunch in Assigned Dining Room in Crocker
Dining HA11

END OF WORKSHOP

D-5

I AV

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

West coast Regional Coastal Zone Management Workshop
Asilomar, California
September 10-12, 1989

DRAFT OUTLINE OF NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN
REGIONAL INTERSTATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

I.- Introduction

A. Brief background on project and project objectives

B. Recent regional uses of 309 funds (see Appendix A
attached)

1. Research relevant to management in more than one
state

2. Columbia River estuary planning and management

C. organization of plan

II. Background for targeting substantive categories

A. Overview of the Ostate of the coastal zoneO of the
region (natural resources, environmental quality,
development activities)

B. General description of research, management, and
planning goals in the region

C. Listing of ongoing and proposed state and federal
research and planning programs especially relevant to
309:

1. CZMA 306
2. Sea Grant
3. NCRI, e.g., CZM Remote Sensing User's Guide
4. MMS Environmental Studies
5. Corps of Engineers Shore Protection
6. FEMA Mapping
7. EPA National Estuary Program
8. Saltonstall-Kennedy grants
9. Coastal Barrier Resources Act
10. Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act

OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW CENTER - SCHOOL OF LAW - EUGENE, OR 97403-1221 - TELEPHONE (503) 086-3845

j4nFludOpponnnity.,40;rmistucAriion Inssaxtion

D-6

11. Pending regional marine research, monitoring, and
coastal protection legislation, e.g., S. 1189
12. USGS/NOAA EEZ Seafloor Regional Mapping Effort
13. NOAA marine Sanctuary/Estuarine Research Reserve
Programs

III. Targeting Substantive Categories: A General Framework

A. The Columbia River and contiguous state and federal
ocean waters stretching from Alaska to California are
the region's principal shared interstate resources with
interstate and federal-state linkages important to the
309 program (also wetlands--migratory birds).

1. De-emphasize Columbia if it goes into NEP? But
see Nat'l 309 Guidance which gives priority to
NERR's (Padilla Bay, S. Slough, Elkhorn Slough,
Tijuana River) and NEP's with management confs.
(other W. Coast NEP's, Puget Sound, S.F. Bay,
Santa Monica Bay are not interstate)

B. Thus also expect continuing emphasis in region's 309
program and this plan on coastal management problems
that are faced by more than one state in the region
even though they do not involve a shared interstate
resource, For such common problems, a regional
approach often makes sense where:

1. Federal policy encourages uniformity among the
states in responding to the common problem

2. The common problem is new or emerging and there is
a high degree of uncertainty creating a need for
definition and making consideration of alternative
responses timely

3. The common problem is of such high priority that
action among the states can improve or expedite
resolution of the problem

IV. Prioritized list of data needs and studies (final plan will
name agencies who will implement any research projects
recommended and possible alternative funding sources).

A. Coastal Wetlands, Estuaries, and Nearshore Waters

1. Immediate (1 - 2 years, with budget and potential
funding sources)

a. Implementing a Nno-net lossm approach in
wetlands management (see 1989 Ore. S.B. 3)

b. Mitigation of development impacts on
important coastal resources, e.g., wetlands--

D-7

what works and what doesn't--any 309 role
beyond education and information exchange'?

C. Corps of Engineers advanced identification of
wetlands program

d. State 404 assumptions

2. Mid-term (3 - 5 years)

w
a. Integrating coastal ater quality protection
into CZM, especially regarding non-point
sources (remote sensing as potential
enforcement tool)

b. Closing the gap between water pollution
regulatory standards and currently available
technology

3. Long-term (6 - 10 years)

a. Coordinated 3-state NERR work--recall
Darienzols work in S. Slough

B. Coastal Hazards: Short Term and Long Term

1. Immediate (1 - 2 years, with budget and potential
funding sources)

2. Mid-term (3 - 5 years)

a. Regional response to FEMA interim demolition
and relocation erosion regulations (53 Fed.
Reg. 36973) if extended beyond 9/30/89

3. Long-term (6 - 10 years)

a. Support work (at least information exchange)
on common responses to sea level rise as
information develops--see BCDC as a model and
consider possible role for Coastal Barrier
Resources Act

b. Also support information dissemination to the
public? I i
C. Shoreland Use Allocation (public access, aquaculture
facility siting, etc.)

1. Immediate (1 - 2 years, with budget and potential
funding sources)

2. Mid-term (3 - 5 years)

D-8

a. Shoreland needs of commercial fishing fleets
which are mobile throughout the region, and
their competition for space with recreational
boating

b. Submerged land zoning and alternatives

C. Research on how to factor cumulative effects
on coastal resources into project specific
decisionmaking

d. Develop regional aquaculture/mariculture
siting criteria and regulatory requirements

3. Long-term (6 - 10 years)

a. Develop common public access signage
throughout the region with interpretation
comparing and contrasting coastal features of
the West Coast as a whole

b. Regional coastal demographic research

C. Rural coast industrialization in the region

d. Regional EEZ atlases--see NOAA atlas projects

D. Regional Ocean Resources Management Issues (offshore
oil and gas and seabed hard minerals development,
implementation of MARPOL Annex V, enhancing regional
oil spill response capabilities, offshore processing of
seafood wastes, etc.)

1. Immediate (1 - 2 years) with budget and potential
funding sources

a. Regional oil transportation regulation and
spill response--Exxon Valdez from Alaska to
San Diego (strongly supported by Western
Legislative Conference Ocean Resources
Committee) (1989 OR, WA, AK legislatures have
appropriated funds and revised laws in this
area; AK has regionalized oil spill response
w/i AK; Cal. Assembly Select Committee on oil
Spill Response)

(1) Research on offshore convergence zones
where fisheries resource is high and
potential damage from spills great

(2) Studies of exchange phenomena at
estuary mouths to develop buffer zones
designed to keep spills from entering
estuaries

D-9

(3) Interstate agreements covering
emergency training, management, and
response

(4) Develop regional minimum petroleum
transportation safety standards

(5) Inventory West Coast spill response
capability

(6) Spill technology assessment

(7) Vessel traffic system assessment

b. MARPOL V implementation consistently
throughout region--S/K an alternative
funding source?

(1) Technical assistance to ports and
communities

C. General goal: promote regional uniformity
wherever possible

2. Mid-term (3 - 5 years)
a. Responding t@o federal, industry, and other
regional pressures for federal-state
approaches such as the DOI/WA/OR/Tribes Oil
and gas task force; DOI/OR seabed placers
task force; AK cooperative effort with DOI re
marine placers offshore Nome (OCRM Spring
1989 309 Guidance: "Particular consideration
is given to the establishment of
Federal/State consultation proceduresm;
existing Ninterstatem (and federal-state?)
entities have priority over temporary ones
created pursuant to 15 CFR Section 932.12)

b. Research on management techniques to
minimize impacts and recover costs:

(1) Siting offshore platforms and major
onshore facilities, e.g., graving docks

(2) Benefits and costs of mandatory
pipeline corridors

(3) Fishing gear conflicts with offshore oil
and mining equipment: minimizing
conflict and settling claims

D-10

C. Develop uniform regional minimum standards
for state and federal oil and gas development

3. Long-term (6 - 10 years)

a. Three federal-state task forces for
multiple-use planning in the 3 - 12 mile
extended territorial sea: Cal. - Fed 3-12
Task Force; OR/WA - Fed 3-12 Task Force; and
AK - Fed 3-12 Task Force I

b. See statute and legislative history for
support for using 309 funds for fed-state
consultation regarding contiguous ocean
areas.

V. Regional CZM Information Exchange

A. General Categories of Information Transfer

1. Innovative state legislation and regulations
(promote regional uniformity where possible)

2. Relevant regional federal agency, state agency,
and academic (e.g. Sea Grant) research results

3. State-to-state technical assistance (e.g.,
personnel exchanges)

4. Public information (promote regional view of
common problems wherever possible)

B. Specific Information Exchange Opportunities

1. Oil Spill Response Information

2. Information Exchange through MMS E Studies
Program, PACFIN

3. Oregon Ocean Task Force 7/89 Research Needs
draft: MOA's with relevant federal agencies to
take advantage of available digital data bases,
e.g., USGS/NOAA EEZ seafloor mapping projects

4. Emerging state and federal GIS systems should be
studied and ways for them to Otalkm with one
another explored further

5. Information exchange especially important to
Alaska regarding CZM approaches in the other 3
states

6. Based on Alaska experience with Exxon Valdez
spill, what about short-term personnel exchanges
between state and federal agencies?

D-11

7. Could hold regional CZM conferences in alternate
years to the national OCoastal Zone" conferences
(compare annual Pacific Basin CZM conferences)

VI. Alternative Regional CZM Plans: The results of our work and
our judgments about alternative approaches NCRI and the
states could consider. We can conceive of modest, moderate
and radical departures from current practice. (Each
alternative should address coordination with ongoing
programs, better meshing of 306 and 309, prioritization
among substantive categories.)

A. Question: What should be the principal future
thrust(s) of west coast 309 program? Research,
planning, management, information transfer,
"coordination,N etc? (Per OCRM's Spring 1989 309
Guidance: Ointerstate planning in coastal management
through coordinationm)

B. Challenge for the future: better integration of 309
funded projects into agency operations, specifically
better meshing of 309 and 306

1. Meeting the challenge

a. National level

(1) Reducing uncertainty in 309
appropriations

(2) Greater predictability in regional
allocations of 309 appropriations

b. Regional level

(1) Meshing 309 planning and funding with
state CZM agency planning and funding
under CZMA 306 and state appropriation
cycles (could periodically house a 309
planner/expediter at NCRI on a rotating
basis from one of the 4 state CZM
agencies)

(2) NBlock grantN approach setting aside
dollar quantities or %Os of regional 309
funds for targeted substantive
categories

(3) Could assume a minimum 309 $ amount to
be allocated pursuant to the plan each
year ($200 K) and use excess for
flexibility: new issues, great proposals

D-12

(4) Continue regional competitive RFP
approach for all projects?

C. Coordination recommendations regarding other relevant
state and federal programs listed in II.C. above,
e.g., consider planned MMS environmental studies
program projects for 309 except big ticket items

VII. Plan Amendment Procedures: Changes in issues, changes in
priorities

A. Once a year each 309 coordinator would convene a
workshop co-sponsored by the state's 306 program
involving state and federal agencies and private and
public interest groups analogous to the ffinstate
meetingsO that were held to produce this plan

(1) This workshop would review current issues relevant
to both the state's 306 program and the region's
309 program and prepare a state assessment of the
309 program for the past year

(2) Regarding the 309 program, workshop participants
would develop proposed amendments to this plan for
consideration by the regional CZM board at its
annual meeting

B. At the annual regional CZM board meeting, plan
amendments developed at the individual state workshops
and other proposed amendments would be reviewed for
final adoption by the board

VIII. Bibliography (by recommended project area)

IX. APPENDICES (in joint volume with ocean governance project)

A. Directory of Past 309 Projects in the Region

B. Sample Questionnaire

C. 4-state mailing lists

D. summaries of*instate meeting in each state

E. summaries of questionnaire responses in the 4 states

F. OCRM Spring 1989 309 Guidance

D-13

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

BIBLI
FOR
PACIFIC COAST REGIONAL
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CONTENTS

PAGE

COASTAL WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-2

COASTAL WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-6

Coastal Pollution/Nonpoint Source Pollution . . . . E-6

Estuary Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-9

Annex V, MARPOL Convention/Marine Debris . . . . . E-14

COASTAL HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-16

SHORELAND USE ALLOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-25

Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-25

Beach Access .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-26

CONTIGUOUS OCEAN RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-29

Oil Spills/Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-29

Offshore Oil and Gas/Hard Minerals Development . . E-31

CZM Consistency Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-37

State Capacity (Territorial Sea, EEZ, and Coastal
Zone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-38

OTHER REGIONAL TOPICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-43

Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-43

Living Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-43

Citizen Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-44

Port Planning and Management . . . . . . . . . . . E-44

Remote Sensing . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . E-45

Marine and Estuarine Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . E-45

APPENDIX E

COASTAL WETIANDS

Alaska. Office of Coastal Management. 1981. Wetlands
management in Alaska: A report to the Alaska Coast al
Policy Council. Juneau.

Blilmm, Michael C., and D. Bernard Zaleha. 1989. Federal
wetlands protection under the Clean Water Act: Regulatory
ambivalence, intergovernmental tension, and a call for
reform. University of Colorado Law R-eview 60:695-772.
Boule, Marc E., Nancy Olmsted, and Tina Miller. 1983.
Inventory of wetland resources and evaluation of wetland
management in western Washington. Olympia: Washington
State Dept. of Ecology.

California. Dept. of Parks and Recreation. 1988. California
wetlands: An element of the California outdoor recreation
Rlanning program. Sacramento.

Carlin, Michael P. 1988. Proposed wetlands ROlicv Rrocedural
ggidelines for the San Francisco Bay Region. Rev. final
draft. Oakland, Calif.: California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region.

Dedrick, Kent G. 1989. San Francisco Bay tidal marshland
acreages: Recent and historic-values. In Coastal zone
189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 383-98. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Dyer, Polly, ed. 1987. Northwest wetlands: What are they?
for whom? for what? Proceedings of conference held Nov.
1-21 1985, at Seattle Center, Seattle, Wash. Seattle:
Institute for Environmental Studies, University of
Washington.

EPA Regulations Governing Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Exemptions and State Programs. 1988. Federal Registe
53:20,764 (to-be codified at C.F.R. v. 40, pts. 232-33).

Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. 1989. Adopted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service. Washington, D.C.

Feierabend, J. Scott., and John M. Zelazny. 1987. Status
report on our nation's wetlands. Washington, D.C.:
National Wildlife Federation.

Focus: Clean Water Act's section 404. 1989. University of
Colorado Law Review 60:685-922. (Selected articles
listed separately.] E-2

Ford, Kittie E., and Karen A. Glatzel. 1989. Wetlands
mitigation banking prospects for the State of
Washington. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 1230-41. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Houck, Oliver A. 1989. Hard choices: The analysis of
alternatives under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
similar environmental laws. University of Colorado Law
Revie 60:773-840.

Jackson, Jerry. 1988. Wetlands and the commerce clause: The
constitutionality of current wetland regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Virginia Journal of
Natural Resources Law 7:307-38.

Jacobs, Sherry Lynn. 1987. Strengthening wetland protection
programs through state regulation. U.C. Davis Law
Rny_iew 21:227-70.

Jacobsen, Alyse, and Laurie Marcus. 1988. What every wetland
needs: Watershed management and erosion control. In
Coastal zone 185, post-conference volume, ed. Hugh
Converse, Orville T. Magoon, and L. Thomas Tobin, 404-16.
San Francisco: Coastal Zone Foundation.

Josselyn, Michael, ed. 1982. Wetland restoration and
enhancement in California. La Jolla, Calif.: California
Sea Grant College Program, Institute of Marine Resources,
University of California.

Josselyn, Michael, Molly Martindale, and Joan Duffield. 1989.
Public access and wetlands: Impacts of recreational use.
Technical Report no. 9. Tiburon, Calif.: Romberg Tiburon
Centers, Center for Environmental Studies, San Francisco
State University.

Kennedy, Helen M. 1988.-'The 1986 habitat amendments to the
Magnuson Act: A new procedural regime for activities
affecting fisheries habitat. Environmental Law 18:339-
64.

Kusler, Jon A. 1979. Strengthening state wetland
regulations. Washington, D.C.: Office of Biological
Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Kusler, Jon A. 1983. Our national wetland heritage: A
protection guideboo Washington, D.C.: Environmental
Law Institute.

Kyle, Amy D. 1982. Local planning for wetlands management: A
manual for districts in the Alaska Coastal Management

E-3

Program.' Juneau: Office of Coastal Management, Division
of Policy Development and Planning, Office of the
Governor.

National Wetlands Policy Forum. 1988. Protecting America's
wetlands: An action agenda. Washington, D.C.:
Conservation Foundation.

Ransel, Katherine, and Erik Meyers. 1988. State-water
quality certification and wetland protection: A call to
awaken the sleeping giant. Virginia Journal of Natural
Resources Law 7:339-79.

Riddle, Elizabeth P., and Melanie F. Denninger. 1988.
Coastal wetland mitigation banks: The California State
Coastal Conservancy experience. In Coastal zone 185,
post-conference volume, ed. Hugh Converse, Orville T.
Magoon, and L. Thomas Tobin, 231-46. San Francisco:
Coastal Zone Foundation.

Rouvalis, Mark C. 1988. Restoration of wetlands under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act: An analytical
synthesis of statutory and case law principles. Boston
College Environmental Affairs Law Revi 15:295-347.

Shabman, Leonard A., and Sandra S. Batie. 1987. Mitigating
damages from coastal wetlands development: Policy,
economics, and financing. Marine Resource Economics
4:227-48.

Sheehy, Daniel J., and Susan F. Vik. 1989. Extending
mitigation banking beyond wetlands. In Coastal zone 189,
ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1242-53. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Siegel, Stuart. 1989. Wetlands restoration: A case study of
turning failure into success. In Coastal zone 189,
Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1215-29. New York: American
Society of Civil-Engineers.

Steinberg, Robert, and Michael G. Dowd. 1988. Economic
considerations in the section 404 wetland permit process.
Virginia Journal of Natural Resources Law 7:277-305.

Symposium issue: Wetland law and policy. 1988. Virginia
Journal of Natural Resources La 7:217-451. [Selected
articles listed separately.]

Thayer, Gordon W., et al. 1989. Fishery habitat restoration:
A NMFS-COE agreement. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville
T. Magoon, et al., 1254-68. New York: American Society
of civil Engineers.

E-4

Tiner, Ralph W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current
status and recent trends. Washington, D.C.: National
Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Tripp, James T.B., and Michael Herz. 1988. Wetland
preservation and restoration: Changing federal
priorities. Virginia Journal of Natural Resources La
7:221-75.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment. Wetlands conservation:
Hearing. 101st Cong., lst sess., 1989. Serial no. 101--
16.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. 1984.
Wetlands: Their use and recmlation. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public
Works. Subcommittee on Environmental Protection. The
North American Wetlands Conservation Act: Hearing. 101st
Cong., lst sess., 1989. S. Hrg. 101-133.

U.S. Dept. of the Army. 1989. Memorandum of agreement
between the Department of the Army and the Environmental
Protection Agency concerning the determination of the
geographig Jurisdiction of the section 404 program and
the a2plication of the exemptions under section 404(f) of
the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. National wetlands
priority conservation plan. Washington, D.C.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. wetlands: The Corps
of Engineers' administration of the Section 404 program.
Washington, D.C.

Washington (State). Dept. of Ecology. 1988. 1988
IWashington wetlands stUdy report. Olympia.

Washington (State). Dept. of Ecology. 1988. Wetland
regglations gmideboo . Olympia.

Zedler, Joy B. 1984. Salt marsh restoration: A cruidebook for
Southern California. La Jolla, Calif.: California Sea
Grant College Program, Institute of Marine Resources,
University of California.

Zentner, John. 1988. Wetland projects of the California
State Coastal Conservancy: An assessment. Coastal
Management 16:47-67.

E-5

Zinn, Jeffrey A., and Claudia Copeland. 1982. Wetland
management. Report prepared for the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. 97th Cong., 2d sess.
Committee Print. Serial no. 97-11.

COASTAL WATER QUALITY

Coastal Pollution/Nonpoint Source Pollution

Anderson, Jack W., Steven M. Bay, and Bruce E. Thompson.
1989. Characteristics and effects of contaminated
sediments from Southern California. In Oceans 189, vol.
2, 449-51. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center;
Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

California. State Water Resources Control Board. 1988.
California ocean plan: Water guality control plan. ocean
waters of California. Sacramento.

California. State Water Resources Control Board. Division of
Water Quality. 1988. California ocean Rlan: Functional
eauivalent document. amendment of the water quality
control Rlan for ocean waters of California. Sacramento.

Chartrand, A.B. 1989. LARWQCB survey of organochlorine
contaminants in Southern California waters. In Oceans
189, vol. 2, 376-81. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service
Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Eichbaum, William M., and Brock B. Bernstein. 1989.
Comprehensive analysis of marine monitoring in Southern
California. In Oceans IA9, vol. 2, 337-43. Piscataway,
N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine
Technology Society.

Hansen, Nancy Richardson, and Roslyn E. Glasser. 1989. The
politics of nonpoint pollution management. In 'Coastal
zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2362-75. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Holing, Dwight, ed. 1989. Ebb tide for pollution: Actions
for cleaning up coastal waters. New York: Natural
Resources Defense Council.

Koenings, Jeanne, and Neil Aaland. 1989. Nonpoint pollution
planning in Thurston County, Washington. In Coastal zone
189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2376-87. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

E-6

McCain, Bruce B., et al. 1989. Results of the National
Benthic Surveillance Project (Pacific Coast): 1987. In
Oceans 189, vol. 2, 590-96. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE
Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
society.

McCullough, Melissa W., and John C. Crew. 1989. Selling
water quality planning to local governments. In Coasta
zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2388-94. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

North Carolina. Division of Coastal Management. 1986.
Protecting coastal waters through local planning.
Raleigh: Dept. of Natural Resources and Community
Development.

Phillips, Jonathan D. 1989. Evaluating estuarine shoreline
buffer zones for nonpoint source pollution control. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 399-411.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Phillips, Lynn R., and John Crew. 1989. Using existing local
policies and ordinances to protect coastal water quality.
In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2395-
2402. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Political. institutional. and fiscal alternatives for nonRoint
pollution abatement programs: Proceedings of a
conference held in Milwaukee. Wisconsin. December 7-9.
1987. 1988. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.

Pollock, Gerald A., Iyorlumun J. Unaa, and Yvette A. Wieder.
1989. Factors involved in human health based study
design of chemical contamination of fish: The California
Department of Health Services' study of Southern
California. In Oceans 189, vol. 2, 670-75. Piscataway,
N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine
Technology Society.

Reese, James R., and A. Rudder Turner, Jr. 1989. Designation
and management of ocean dredged material disposal sites
in the Pacific Northwest. In Oceans 189, vol. 2, 333-36.
Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.:
Marine Technology Society.

Saving our bays. sounds. and the Great Lakes: The national
agenda. 1987. Providence, R.I.: Save the Bay, Inc.

Sherwood, C.R., D. Coats, and B. Walls. 1989. Current and
suspended sediment measurements on the central California
continental shelf. In Oceans 189, vol. 2, 320-25.

E-7

Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.:
Marine Technology Society.

Smolen, M.D., et al. 1988. Interfacing nonpoint source
programs with the conservation reserve: Guidance for
water auality managers. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

Thompson, Paul. 1989. Poison runoff: A gmide to state and
local nonpoint source ROllution. New York: Natural
Resources Defense Council.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. 1989. Coastal waters in ieopardy: Reversing
the decline and Rrotecting America's coastal resources:
Oversight report. Committee Print. Serial no. 100-E.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment. Coastal and estuarine
pollution: Hearing. 100th Cong., 1st sess., 1987.
Serial no. 100-16.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and wildlife
Conservation and the Environment. The Coastal Defense
Initiative of 1989. 101st Congress, 1st sess., 1989.
Serial no. 101-26.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment. Coastal Dollution--
Part 1: Hearing. 100th Cong., lst sess., 1987. Serial
no. 100-42.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment. Coastal pollution-
Part 2: Hearing. 100th Cong., 2d sess.,.1988. Serial
no. 100-56.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment. Coastal water auality:
Hearing. 100th Cong., 2d sess., 1988. Serial no. 100-
77.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. National Ocean Policy Study. ImRact of

E-8

acid rain on coastal waters: Hearing. 100th Cong., 2d
sess., 1988. S. Hrg. 100-836.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. National
coastal and marine ROlicy- Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection. 1988. Financing marine and
estuarine programs: A cruide to resources. Prepared by
Apogee Research, Inc. for the EPA. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Of fice of Water.
1985. Final reRort on the federal/statellocal NonROint
Source Task Force and recommended national nonRoint
source Rolicy. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water.
1989. Marine and estuarine protection: Programs and
activities. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water.
1989. Nonpoint sources: Agenda for the future.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. National Ocean Pollution Program Office. 1989.
National marine ROllution Rrogram: Federal plgn for ocean
pollution research, development. and monitoring, fiscal
years 1988-1992. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief
scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

U.S. National Ocean Service. office of Oceanography and
Marine Assessment. 1986- . A national atlas: Health and
use of coastal waters. United States of America.
Rockville, Md.

Van Veldhuizen, H.D., R. Markel, and P. Carpenter. 1989.
Ocean dumping of municipal incinerator ash by Akutan,
Alaska. In Oceans 189, vol. 2, 314-19. Piscataway,
N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine
Technology Society.

Estuary Planning

Armstrong, John W., and Andrea E. Copping. 1989. Comparing
the regional Puget Sound Marine Monitoring Program with
the NOAA National Status and Trends Program. In Coastal
zone 189., ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2421-35. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

E-9

Barile, Diane D. 1988. Regional estuarine management: Public
networks. In Coastal zone 185, post-conference volume,
ed. Hugh Converse, Orville T. Magoon, and L. Thomas
Tobin, 417-27. San Francisco: Coastal Zone Foundation.

Benson, Paul. 1987. A review of mitigation requirements for
development proiects in Oregon's coastal estuaries.
Newport, Or.: Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association.

Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program. 1984. The
Columbia River Estuary: Atlas of the @hvsical and
biological characteristics. Astoria, Or.

Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce. 1988. Columbia River
Estuary regional management Rlan. Astoria, Or.

Coomes, Carol A., et al. 1989. Puget Sound environmental
atlas: View of an estuary. In Oceans 189, vol. 1, 196-
201. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington,
D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Cortright, Robert, Jeffrey Weber, and Robert Bailey. 1987.
The Oregon estuary Rlan book. Salem: Oregon Dept. of Land
Conservation and Development.

Crecelius, E.A., D.L. Woodruff, and M.S. Meyer. 1989. Survey
?f sediment quality, contaminants in fish tissue, and
incidence of fish disease in four non-urban bays of Puget
Sound. In Oceans 189, vol. 2, 676-79. Piscataway, N.J.:
IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
Society.

Evans, Nan, et al. 1980. The search for Rredictability:
Planning and conflict resolution in Grays Harbor,
Washington. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program,
University of Washington.
-Fishman Environmental Services. 1987. Final report,
Estuarine Mitigation Evaluation Project. Salem: Oregon
Dept. of Land Conservation and Development.

Fishman Environmental Services. 1987. Mitigation site
evaluation notebook: A report. Salem: Oregon Dept. of
Land Conservation and Development.

Fishman Environmental Services. 1987. Removal-fill activity
in Oregon estuaries. 1971-1987. Salem: Oregon Dept. of
Land Conservation and Development.

Fishman, Paul A., and South Slough National Estuarine
Sanctuary. 1984. South Slough National Estuarine

E-10

Sanctuary management plan. Washington, D.C.: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Good, James W. 1987. Mitigating estuarine development
impacts in the Pacific Northwest: From concept to
practice. The Northwest Environmental aournal 3(l):93-
112.

Goodrich,-David M., ed. 1987. San Francisco Bay: Issues,_
resources, status. and management: Proceedings of a
seminar held November 22, 1985. Washington. D.C. NOAA
Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series, no. 6. Washington,
D.C.: NOAA Estuarine Programs Office, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.

Grays Harbor Estuary Management Planning Task Force. 1987.
Grays Harbor estuary management 21an. Aberdeen, Wash.:
Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission.

Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1983. Grays
Harbor Estuary management program: Data maRs. Aberdeen,
Wash.

Gulick, Esther, Catherine Kerr, and Sylvia McLaughlin. 1988.
Saving San Francisco Bay: Past. present. and future.
Berkeley: Dept. of Forestry and Resource Management,
University of California.

Hamilton, Stanley F. 1984. Estuarine mitigation: The Oregon
process. Salem: Oregon Division of State Lands.

Holland, Cindy C., Kathryn B. Howd, and Jefferson J. Gonor.
1989. Water auality assessment of the lower Columbia
River. Corvallis, Or.: Marine Resource Management
Program, College of Oceanography, Oregon State
University.

Horton, Tom. 1988. Protection of the Chesapeake Bay:
Environmentally legal, eminently uninhabitable? Maryland
Law Review 47:406-24.

Kassebaum, Carl. 1989. Regulatory decision making processes
associated with dredging in Puget Sound. In Oceans 189,
vol. 2, 631-34. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center;
Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Krueger, Catherine C., and Robert S. Barrick. 1989.
Developing sediment quality criteria and standards:
Comprehensive sediment management in Puget Sound. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 4950-60.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

E-11

LeMay, Joseph A., Melinda S. Bartlett, and John H. Dorsey.
1989. Microbiological monitoring of recreational waters
in Santa Monica Bay, California, and the effects of storm
drain effluents on three bacterial indicators. In Oceans
189, vol. 2, 684-89. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service
Center; Washington, D.C.: marine Technology Society.

Liebster, Jack. 1989. Protecting the resources of Bolsa
Chica through planning and regulation. In Coastal zone
189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 4568. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

MacDonald, Donald A. 1989. A summary of status and trends in
concentrations of selected chemical contaminants and
measures of biological stress in San Francisco Bay. In
Oceans 189, vol. 2, 647-51. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE
Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
Society.

Martin, C. Ann, et al. 1989. Detection of temporal and
spatial water quality trends in Santa Monica Bay, 1987 to
1988. 1 'n Oceans 189, vol. 2, 371-75. Piscataway, N.J.:
IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
Society.

Monaco, Mark E., and Robert L. Emmett. 1988. National
estuarine inventory: Estuarine living marine resources
project. Washington State component. Rockville, Md.:
Strategic Assessment Branch, ocean Assessments Division,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

National environmental symposium on the Chesapeake Bay. 1988.
Maryland Law Review 47:341-496. (Selected articles
listed separately.]

Noble, Elizabeth B., and W. David Noble. 1989. Pamlico-
Albemarle Sound: The use of long-term fisheries-databases
for estuarine habitat protection. In Coastal zone 189,
ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 235-44. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Orlando, S. Paul, et al. 1988. Shoreline modification.
dredged channels. a@d dredged material disposal areas in
the nation's estuaries. Rockville, Md.: Strategic
Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division, National
Ocean Service.

Percival, Robert V. *1988. Protecting coastal and estuarine
resources--confronting the gulf between the promise and
product of environmental regulation. Maryland Law Review
47:341-57.

E-12

Puget Sound: Issues. reso@rces. status. and management:
Proceedings of a seminar held January 21. 1987,
Washington, D.C. 1988. NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month
Seminar Series, no. 8. Washington, D.C.: NOAA Estuarine
Programs Office, National oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1989. 1989 Puget gound
water gUality management Rlan. Seattle.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1989. Puget Sound water
auality: An annotated bibliography of agency materials.
Seattle.

Ramsdell, K.A., J.A. Strand, and V.I. Cullinan. 1989.
Amphipod bioassay of selected sediments from Sequim. Bay,
Washington. In Oceans 189, vol. 2, 443-48. Piscataway,
N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine
Technology Society.

Roy-Burman, Sumitra, Lih J. Huang, and Lucy K. Jao. 1989.
Sediment contaminants and bioaccumulation of pollutants
in Santa Monica Bay. In Oceans 189, vol. 2, 641-46.
Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.:
Marine Technology Society.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Annual report. San Francisco.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
1983. San Francisco Bay Rlan. January 1969 plan, as
amended through September 1983. San Francisco.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
1987. Mitigation practices guideboo . San Francisco.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
1988. Status of bay dredging. San Francisco.

Skinnarland, Kirvil, and Jack H. Gakstatter. 1989.
Environmental problems and solutions in Puget Sound. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2412-20.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Smith, Scott E., ed. 1983. A mitigation plan for the
Columbia River Estuary. Astoria, Or.: Columbia River
Estuary Study Taskforce.

E-13

Stewart, Jeffree R. 1989. Standards for confined disposal of
contaminated sediments from Puget Sound, Washington. In
Oceans-189, vol. 2, 625-30. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE
Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
Society.

Thompson, Bruce, and John Dorsey. 1989. Recovery of Santa
Monica Bay from sludge discharge: Progressive report. In
Oceans 189, vol. 2, 437-42. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE
Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
society.

Tripp, James T.B., and Michael Oppenheimer. 1988.
Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay: A multi-state
institutional challenge. Maryland Law Review 47:425-51.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection. 1988. The National Estuary
Program and interim final cmidance on the contents of a
governor's nomination. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Ocean Assessments Division. Strategic Assessment
Branch. 1985- National estuarine inventory: Data
atlas. 2 vols. to date. Rockville, Md.: National Ocean
service.

Urabeck, Frank J. 1989. Puget Sound dredged disposal
analysis: Lessons learned. In Oceans 189, vol. 2, 617-
24. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington,
D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Washington. Dept. of Ecology. Shorelands Division. 1984.
Padilla Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary management Rlan.
Olympia.

Washington State coastal zone management Rrogram amendment no.
3: Approval of the Grays Harbor Estuary management vlan:
Program final environmental impact statement. 1987.
Olympia: Washington State Dept. of Ecology.

Wolniakowski, Krystyna U., Dennis R. Ades, and Patricia
Benner. 1989. Action plan for Oregon estuary and ocean
waters: A national near coastal waters pilot project. In
oceans 189, vol. 2, 690-93. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE
Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
Society.

Annex V, MARPOL Convention/Marine Debris

Augerot, Xanthippe. 1988. Plastic in the ocean: What are we
doing to clean it up? Seattle: Washington Sea Grant
marine Advisory services, University of Washington.

E-14

Center for Environmental Education. 1987. Plastics in the
ocean: More than a litter problem. Washington, D.C.

Coast Guard Regulations Implementing the Pollution Prevention
Requirements of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78. 1988. Federal
Recigter 53:43,621 (proposed Oct. 27, 1988).

Conner, Daniel K., and Robert O'Dell. 1988. The tightening
net of marine plastics pollution: Strategies for
intervention. Environment 30(l):17-20+

Cottingham, David. 1988. Persistent marine debris: Challenge
and response: The federal persRective. Washington, D.C.:
Office of the Chief Scientist, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

Fjelstad, Eric J. 1988. The ghosts of fishing nets past: A
proposal for regulating derelict synthetic fishing nets.
Washington Law Review 63:677-99.

Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debris. 1988.
Report of the Interagency Task Force on Persistent Marine
Debris. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

Marine Plastic'Debris Task Force. 1988. Marine Rlastic
debris action Rlan for Washington State. Olympia:
Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources.

Oceans of plastic: ReRort on a Wgrkshop on Fisheries-Generated
Marine Debris and Derelict Fishincr Gear, February 9-11,
1988, Portland. Oregon. 1988. Alaska Sea Grant Report
no. 88-7. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program,
University of Alaska.

O'Hara, Kathryn J. 1989. Trash on America's-beaches: A
national assessment. Washington, D.C.: Center for Marine
Conservation.

O'Hara, Kathryn J., Suzanne Iudicello, and Rose Bierce. 1988.
A citizens cruide to Rlastics in the ocean: More than a
litter Rroblem. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Environmental Education.

Pacific Associates. 1988. A report to the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation on the effects of MARPOL,
Annex V. on the Rorts of Kodiak and Unalaska. NWAFC
Processed Report 88-26. Seattle: Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Recht, Fran. 1988. Dealing with Annex V--reference guide for
Ports. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWR 23.
Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service.

E-15

Recht, Fran. 1988. Report on a port-based proiect to reduce
marine debris. Seattle: Northwest and Alaska Fisheries
Center, National Marine Fisheries service.

Ticco, Paul C. 1989. An examination of recent United States
federal legislation pertaining to marine plastic
pollution. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 1269-78. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act.
100th Cong., 1st sess., 1987. H. Rept. 100-360.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation.
Plastic pollution in the marine environment: Hearings.
100th Cong., 1st sess., 1987. Serial no. 100-26.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. Marine Plastic Pollution Prevention Act
of 1987. 100th Cong., 1st sess., 1987. S. Rept. 100-
266.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. National Ocean Policy Study. Plastic
pollution in the marine environment: Hearing. 100th
Cong., 1st sess., 1987. S. Hrg. 100-294.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public
Works. Plastic Pollutign Control Act of 1987. 100th
Cong., 1st sess., 1987. S. Rept. 100-270.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public
Works. Subcommittee on Environmental Protection.
Controlling and reducing pollution from plastic waste:
Hearings.. 100th Cong., lst sess., 1987. S. Hrg. 100-
322.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations.
MARPOL Convention. Annex V. 100th Cong., 1st sess.,
1987. Exec. Rept. 100-8.

COASTAL HAZARDS

Barth, Michael C., and James G. Titus, eds. 1984. Greenhouse
effect and sea level rise: A challenge for this
generation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Beatley, Timothy. 1985. Development management to reduce
coastal storm hazards: Policies and processes. Chapel

E-16

Hill, N.C.: Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
University of North Carolina.

Beatley, Timothy. 1986. Influences on the priority,
adoRtion, and effectiveness of local coastal storm hazard
mitigation. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Center for Urban and
Regional Studies, University of North Carolina.

Beatley, Timothy, and David J. Brower. 1988. Development
management as means of mitigating the impacts of coastal
storms. In Coastal zone 185, post-con-ference volume, ed.
Hugh Converse, Orville T. Magoon, and L. Thomas Tobin,
189-206. San Francisco: Coastal Zone Foundation.

Bigford, Thomas E. 1989. Sea level change, fisheries, and
coastal planning. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T.
Magoon, et al., 1333-44. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Blatt, David J.L. 1986. The shadow after the stgrm: Local
government liability for coastal hazard damage. Chapel
Hill, N.C.: Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
University of North Carolina.

Bodge, Kevin R., and Erik J. Olsen. 1989. Navarre navigation
project: Designing an inlet for no net impact to adjacent
shorelines. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 3390-3402. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Braatz, Barbara V., and Frank S. Arnold. 1989. Developing
policies to improve the effectiveness of coastal flood
plain management. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T.
Magoon, et al., 4205. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Brubaker, Linda B., Lisa J. Graumlich, and Silvia Vega-
Gonzalez. 1989. Long environmental records derived from
tree-ring sequence in Washington and Northern Oregon.' In
Oceans 189, vol. 1, 250-53. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE
Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
society.

Buckley, Michael K., and Perry E. Rhodes. 1989. The
Upton/Jones amendment and zone of imminent collapse. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3999-
4009. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Cahill, John J., Chris Butcher, and William Dyson. 1989.
Beach nourishment with fine sand at Carlsbad, California.
In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2092-
2103. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

E-17

California. Assembly. Natural Resources Commi ttee. 1989.
Global warming: A blueprint for state response. Prepared
by Paul Thayer. Sacramento: Joint Publications Office,
California Legislature.

Canning, Douglas J. 1989. Sea level rise in Washington
State: Technical issues and preliminary policy responses.
In Oceans 189, vol. 1, 231-35. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE
Service Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology
Society.

Catallo, W. James, N. Bartl ett Theberge, and Michael E.
Bender. 1989. Sea level rise and hazardous wastes in
the coastal zone: An ecological perspective. In Coastal
zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1407-20. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Chapman, David, and Richard G. Hildreth. 1985. Coastal
erosion management in Australia and the U.S. In Coastal
zone 185, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 91-106. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Clayton, Tonya D. 1989. Artificial beach replenishment on
the U.S. Pacific shore: A brief overview. 1989. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2033-45.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Corfield, Michael A. 1987. Sand rights: Using California's
public trust doctrine to protect against coastal erosion.
San Diego Law Review 24:727-50.

Day, J.W., and P.H. Templet. 1989. Consequences of sea level
rise: Implications from the Mississippi Delta. Coastal
Management 17:241-57.

Dreyfoos, William W., W. Kent Prause, and Margaret A.
Davidson. 1989. Local responses to sea level rise:
Charleston, South Carolina. In Coastal zone 189, ed.
Orville T. Magoon, et al.., 1395-1406. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers.

Ebbesmeyer, Curtis C., and Carol A. Coomes. 1989. Strong,
low frequency (decadal) environmental fluctuations during
the 20th century in the North Pacific Ocean, on the
Washington Coast, and in Puget Sound. In Oceans 189,
vol. 1, 242-46. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center;
Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology society.

Ewing, Lesley C., Jaime M. Michaels, and Richard J. McCarthy.
1989. Planning for an accelerated sea level rise along
the California coast: Draft report. San Francisco:
California Coastal commission.

E-18

Fischer, David W. 1985. Shoreline erosion: A management
framework. Journal of Shoreline Management 1:37-50.

Fulton-Bennett, Kim, and Gary B. Griggs. 1985. Coastal
RK0te9tion structures and their effectiveness.
Sacramento: California Dept. of Boating and Waterways.

Gable, Frank. 1989. Contemporary climate change and its
related effects on global shorelines. In Coastal,zone
189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1370-83. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Godschalk, David R., David J. Brower, and Timothy Beatley.
1989. Catastrophic coastal Mtorms: Hazard mitigation and
develORment management. Durham, N.C.: Duke University
Press.

Good, James W., ed. 1983. Summary proceedings: Legal issues
and liability for construction along the ocean shore.
Corvallis, Or.: Sea Grant/Extension Marine Advisory
Program, Oregon State University.

Gornitz, Vivien, and Paul Kanciruk. 1989. Assessment of
global coastal hazards from sea level rise. In Coastal
zone 1894 ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1345-59. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Griggs, Gary B., and Lauret E. Savoy, eds. 1985. Living with
the California coast. Durham, N.C.: Duke University
Press.

Hegenbarth, Jane L., and David J. Brower. 1985.
Redevelopment after the storm: Hazard-mitictation
opportunities and obstdcles in the post-disaster setting.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
University of North Carolina.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1980. Coastal natural hazards
management. Oregon Law Review 59:201-42.

Houlahan, John M. 1989. Comparison of state construction
setbacks to manage development in coastal hazard areas.
Coastal Management 17:219-28.

Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. 1986. A
unified national program for floodRlain management.
Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. 1987.
Further advice on Executive Order 11988, floodRlain
management. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.

E-19

Kadib, Andrew L., Stephen Fine, and Joseph Ryan. 1989. Coast
of California storm and tidal wave study: An overview.
In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 836-
48. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Kamimura, Gary, Jeffrey A. Zinn, and Malcolm Simmons. 1987.
Managing coastal development through the coastal zone
management and flood insurance programs: EXRerience to
date and the views from selected states. Washington,
D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress.

Kaufman, Wallace, and Orrin H. Pilkey, Jr. 1983. The beaches
are moving: The drowning of America's shoreline. Living
with the Shore. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Kimball, Suzette, Fred Anders, and Robert Dolan. 1988.
Coastal erosion and accretion [map]. Scale 1:7,500,000.
Prepared as part of the National Atlas of the United
States of America. Reston, Va.: U.S. Geological Survey.

Kimball, Suzette, Fred Anders, and Robert Dolan. 1989.
Coastal hazards (map]. Scale 1:7,500,000. Prepared as
part of the National Atlas of the United States of
America. Reston, Va.: U.S. Geological Survey.

Komar, Paul D., and James W. Good. 1989. Long-term erosion
impacts of the 1982-83 El Nino on the Oregon coast. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3785-94.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Komar, Paul D., and William G. McDougal. 1988. Coastal
erosion and engineering structures: The Oregon
experience. Journal of Coastal Research, special issue
no. 4:77-92.

Kuhn, Gerald G., and Francis P. Shepard. 1984. Sea cliffs,
beaches, and coastal valleys of San Diego County: Some
amazing histories and some horrifying implications.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Lankford, Thomas E., and Bart J. Baca. 1989. Comparative
environmental impacts of various forms of beach
nourishment. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 2046-59. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Leatherman, Stephen P., and Cary H. Gaunt. 1989. National
assessment of beach nourishment requirements associated
with accelerated sea level rise. In Coastal zone 189,
ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1978-93. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

E-20

Leonard, Lynn, et al. 1989. U.S. beach replenishment
experience: A comparison of the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Gulf coasts. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 1994-2006. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

McGrath, Jim, ed. 1985. California's battered coast:
Proceedings from a conference on coastal erosion, San
Diecro. February 6-8. 1985. San Francisco: California
coastal commission.

Meo, Mark. 1989. Climate change impacts on coastal
environments: Implications for strategic planning. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1384-94.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Moffatt and Nichol, Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., and
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission. 1988. Future sea level rise: Predictions
and imRlications for San Francisco Bay. Rev. ed. San
Francisco: The Commission.

Monday, Jacquelyn, ed. 1983. Preventing coastal flood
disasters: The role of the states and federal resr)onse:
Proceedings of a symposium. Ocean City. Maryland. May 23-
25, 1983. Special Publication no. 7. Boulder, Colo.:
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
Center, University of Colorado.

Nordstrom, Karl F. 1986. Beach conservation and enhancement:
The basis for a national policy on coastal erosion in the
United States. Journal of Shoreline Management 2:13-34.

Nordstrom, Karl F. 1989. Erosion control strategies for bay
and estuarine beaches. Coastal Management 17:25-35.

Oregon. State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 1978.
Inventory, Oregon coastal shoreline erosion. Salem.

Oregon. State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 1978.
Oregon coastal management Program: Shoreline erosion
management policies and procedures. Salem.

Oregon Task Force on Global Warming. 1989. Possible impacts
on Oregon from global warming. Salem: Oregon Dept. of
Energy.

Propst, C. Luther. 1985. Examination of constitutional and
statutory constraints on the use of develoRment
management to reduce hUrricane and coastal storm hazards.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
University of North Carolina.

E-21

Ralph M. Field Associates. 1981. State and local acauisition
of floodplains and wetlands: A handbook on the use of
accruisition in floodplain management. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Water Resources council.

Ricketts, Peter J. 1989. Coast erosion and community
perception at Nye Beach, Oregon. In Coastal zone 189,
ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 899-914. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Roellig, David A. 1989. Shoreline response to beach
nourishment. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 2104-9. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Roos, Maurice. 1989. Possible climate change and its impact
on water supply in California. In Oceans 189, vol. 1,
247-49. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center;
Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Rosenberg, Norman J., et al. 1989. Policy options for
adaptation to climate chance. Washington, D.C.: Energy
and Natural Resources Division, Resources for the Future.

San Francisco Bay Conservatio n and Development Commission.
1988. Staff reRort on Rrotecting shoreline RroRertv from
tidal erosion: An analysis of the effectiveness and
environmental impacts of administratively authorized
protective structures. San Francisco.

Sayre, William 0., and Paul D. Komar. 1988. The Jump-Off Joe
landslide at Newport, Oregon: History of erosion,
development, and destruction. Shore and Beach 56(3):15-
22.

Sayre, William 0., and Paul D. Komar. 1989. The construction
of homes on four active coastal landslides in Newport,
Oregon: Unbelievable but true! In Coastal zone 189, ed.
Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3286-96. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers.

Schwabacher, Richard A., and H. Suzanne Bolton. 1989.
Coastal policy implications of global warming. In Oceans
189, vol. 1, 270-76. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service
Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Shak, Arthur T., George W. Domurat, and Thomas E. Mitchell.
1989. Emergency response to coastal disasters: The
January 17-18, 1988, Southern California storm
experience. In coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 2502-14. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

E-22

Siah, S. Jonathan. 1989. Evaluation of coastal structures
under 100-year event. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville
T. Magoon, et al., 3412-21. New York: American Society
of Civil Engineers.

Special issue: Global warming and our coast. 1989.
California Waterfront Age 5(4):4-49.

Sylwester, Richard E., and Mark L. Holmes. 1989. Marine
geophysical evidence of a recent submarine slope failure
in Puget Sound, Washington. In Oceans 189, vol. 5, 1524-
29. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington,
D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Terich, Thomas. 1987. Living with the shore of Puget Sound
and the Georgia Strait. Durham, N.C.: Duke University
Press.

Terrell, Louis M. 1988. Regionalism and shoreline
protection. In 'Coastal zone 185, post-conference volume,
ed. Hugh Converse, Orville T. Magoon, and L. Thomas
Tobin, 603-7. San Francisco: Coastal Zone Foundation.

Titus, James G. 1986. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and
coastal zone management. Coastal Zone Management Journal
14:147-71.

Titus, James G., ed. 1988. Greenhouse effect. sea level
rise, and coastal wetlands. Washington, D.C.: office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

Tsai, Frank Y. 1989. Coastal Barrier Resources Act and the
National Flood Insurance Program six years after. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3430-40.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers. 1981. Low cost shore
Protection: A gmide for local government officials.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Global warming:
Hearings. 101st Cong., 1st sess., 1989. Serial no. 101-
31.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources.
Implications of global warming for natural resources:
Oversight hearings. 100th Cong., 2d sess., 1989. Serial
no. 100-58.

E-23

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment. Coastal barriers
resources system: Hearing. 101st Cong., lst sess., 1989.
Serial no. 101-10.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Oceanography and the Great
Lakes. Global climate change: Hearing. 101st Cong., 1st
sess., 1989. Serial no. 101-15.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. National Ocean Policy Study. Global
chance-an ocean persRective: Hearing. 101st Cong., lst
sess., 1989. S. Hrg. 101-95.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and
Space. Climate surprisgs: Hearing. 101st Cong., 1st
sess., 1989. S. Hrg. 101-128.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. Subcommittee on the Consumer. Global
warming and cafe standards: Hearing. 101st Cong., 1st
sess., 1989. S. Hrg. 101-129.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Global warming and its implications for
California: Hearing. 101st Cong., 1st sess., 1989. S.
Hrg. 101-65.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Greenhouse gffect and global climate change:
Hearing. 100th Cong., ist sess., 1988. S. Hrg. 100-461,
pt. 2.

Weaver, David F., and Dexter L. Hayes. 1989. Proposed
response to sea level rise by a local government. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2490-
2501. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Woodell, Gregory J., Anders K. Egense, and Chris C. Butcher.
1989. Beach nourishment project compatible with multiple
concerns, Santa Monica Bay, California. In Coastal zone
189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2076-91. Mew York:
American Society of civil Engineers.

E-24

SHORELAND USE ALLOCATIONS

Aquaculture

Alaska. Legislature. Senate. Advisory Council. 1984.
Review of salmon aauaculture. Juneau.

Alaska Mariculture Technical Work Group. 1986. Mariculture
in Alaska: An examination of government Rrograms.
Juneau: Alaska Mariculture Association.

Benton, David. 1989. Aquatic farming in Alaska. In Coastal,
zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1127-40. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Bill, Alexander H., and Terry T. Nosho, eds. 1988.
Aquaculture in Wgshington State. Seattle: Washington Sea
Grant Marine Advisory Services, University of Washington.

Bowden, Gerald. 1981. Coastal acruaculture law and Rolicy: A
case study of California. Westview Special Studies in
Agriculture/Aquaculture Science and Policy. Boulder,
Colo.: Westview Press.

DeVoe, M. Richard, and Andrew S. Mount. 1989. State
aquaculture leasing systems in the United States: An
assessment of programs and strategies. In Coastal zone
189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1100-1101. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Dickison, Jeffrey A. 1989. Net-pen aquaculture and resource
management. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 1116-26. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

-Evans, Nan. 1979. Aguaculture siting issues in Washington's
coastal zone. Seattle: Coastal Resources Program,
Institute for Marine Studies, University of Washington.

Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and
Technology. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. 1983.
National aauaculture development plan. 2 vols.
Washington, D.C.

Hornstein, Don. 1980. Salmon ranching in Oregon: State and
federal regglations. Special Report 573. Corvallis,
Or.: Extension Marine Advisory Program, Oregon State
University.

Inveen, Daniel C. 1987. The aquaculture industry in
Washington State: An economic overvig . Olympia:
Washington State Dept. of Trade and Economic Development.

E-25

Kawaguchi, Takeshi, and Sanji Kida. 1989. Coastal structures
and aquaculture. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T.
Magoon, et al., 1141-55. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Kerns, Curt. 1986. World salmon farming: An overview with
emphasis on possibilities and Rroblems in Alaska. Marine
Advisory Bulletin no. 26. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant
College Program, University of Alaska.

Mumford, Thomas F. 1987. Seaweed aquaculture Rrogram.
Olympia: Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources.

Pierce, Brad. 1987. Aguaculture in Alaska. House Research
Agency Report 87-B. Juneau: House Research Agency,
Alaska State Legislature.

Science Applications International Corporation. 1986.
Recommended interim guidelines for th2 management of
salmon net-pen culture in Puget Sound: Final report.
Olympia: Washington State Dept. of Ecology.

Shupe, Steven J. 1982. Coastal acruacultuge: Protein,
Rrofits. and problems for a hungry world. Corvallis,
Or.: Sea Grant College Program, Oregon State University.

Washington. Dept. of Fisheries. 1989. Fish culture in
floating net pens: Draft'Drocirammatic environmental
impact statement. Olympia.

Wypyszinski, Alex W. 1983. An overview of lecral constraints
on aauaculture. New Brunswick, N.J.: Sea Grant Extension
Service, Cook College, Rutgers Univeristy.

Beach Access

Althoff, Diane D. 1989. Development of an intertidal ramp:
An innovative approach to shoreline access. In Coastal
zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3142-52. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Benkendorf Associates Corp. 1989. Inventory of Orecton
coastal beach access sites. Salem: Oregon Dept. of Land
Conservation and Development.

Brower, David J. 1978. Access to the nation's beaches: Legal
and planning perspectives. Raleigh: UNC Sea Grant, North
Carolina State University.

E-26

Burrowes, Todd R. 1988. Supreme Court reinvigorates the
public trust while settling its boundaries. Territorial
Sea 8(1): 1-10.

California. Coastal Access Program. 1982. The affordable
coast: A citizen action ggide to California coastAl
accessway management. Rev. ed. San Francisco:
California Coastal commission.

California Coastal Commission. 1981. Innovative management
and funding techniques for coastal accessways. Prepared
jointly with the California State Coastal Conservancy.
San Francisco.

California Coastal Commission. 1983. California coastal
access gUlde. 3rd ed. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.

California State Coastal Conservancy. 1982. Designing
accessways: Coastal access standards element of the
California recreation plan. Prepared jointly with the
California Coastal Commission. Oakland, Calif.

Caliman, Judith E. 1987. Private rights v. public needs:
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. Detroit
College of Law Revi e 1987:1201-15.

Cizerle, Mary M. 1988. Nollan v. California Coastal
Commission: Unprecedented intrusion upon a state's
judgment of the proper means to be applied in land use
regulation. John Marshall Law Review 21:641-56.

Clark, Walter F. 1989. Water use planning and zoning: A
strategy of local and state cooperation in managing
public trust uses in North Carolina's estuarine waters.
In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2583-
88. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Collins, Robert G., and James McGrath. 1989. Who owns the
beach? Finding a nexus gets complicated. In Coastal
zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3166-85. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Economic Consultants Oregon. 1978. State of Oregon
shorefront access and preservation planning process.
Salem: Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development.

Fawcett, James A., Andrew T. Manus, and Jens C. Sorensen.
1981. Proceedings of a forum on recreational access to
the coastAl zone. Los Angeles: Sea Grant Marine Advisory
Program, University of Southern California.

E-27

Heiman, Michael. 1986. Coastal recreation in California:
Policy. management, and access. Berkeley: Institute of
Governmental Studies, University of California.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1987. Public access to shorelines and
beaches: Alternative approaches and the taking issue. In
Watgr as a public resougge: Emerging rights and
obliaations. Boulder, Colo.: Natural Resources Law
Center, University of Colorado Law School.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1989. The public trust doctrine and
conflict resolution in coastal waters: West coast
developments. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T.
Magoon, et al., 2604-19. New York: American Society of
civil Engineers.

Jarman, M. Casey. 1987. Of time, tidelands, and public
trust. Mississippi Law Journal 57:131-59.

Mikkelsen, Thomas H., and Donald B. Neuwirth. 1987. Public
beaches: An owners' manual. Berkeley: California State
Coastal Conservancy.

Morison, Paul. 1987. Staring down the barrel of Nollan: Can
the Coastal Commission dodge the bullet? Whittier Law
Review 9:579-611.

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 107 S. Ct. 3141
(1987).

Scott, James W. 1983. An evaluation of public access to
Washincrton's shorelines since passage of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971. Olympia: Shorelands Division,
Washington State Dept. of Ecology.

Scott, James W. 1989. Shoreline public access handbook.
Advance copy. Olympia: Shorelands & Coastal Zone
Management Program, Washington State Dept. of Ecology.

Scott, James W., Melly A. Reuling, and Don Bales. 1986.
Washington public shore guide: marine waters. Seattle:
University of Washington Press. (1986 supplement
published by Shorelands and Coastal Zone Program,
Washington State Dept. of Ecology).

Travis, William. 1989. Balancing the competing interests in
providing shoreline public access. In Coastal zone 189,
ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 4701-13. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

E-28

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on oversight and Investigations.
Public access to the shore: Hearing. 100th Cong., 1st
sess., 1987. Serial no. 100-23.

Welby, Luise. 1986. Public access to private beaches: A
tidal necessity. UCIA Journal of Environmental Law &
Policy 6:69-104.

CONTIGUOUS OCEAN RESOURCES

Oil Spills/Transportation

Bagwell, David Ashley. 1987. Liability under United States
law for spills of oil or chemicals from vessels. Lloyd's
Maritime and Commercial Law Ouarterly 1987:496-522.

California Coastal Commission. 1983. oil spill response
capability study: Staff report. San Francisco.

Geselbracht, Laura L. 1989. Washington's compensation
recovery mechanisms for acruatic resource damages from
Rollutant spills: A review and appraisal. Seattle:
Institute for Marine studies, University of Washington.

Graham, Wendy J. 1989. oil-spill liability and compensation:
A review and evaluation of Alaska's civil Renalty scheme.
Seattle: Institute for Marine Studies, University of
Washington.

Grigalunas, Thomas A., et al. 1988. Measuring damages to
marine natural resources from pollution incidents under
CERCLA: Applications of an integrated ocean
systems/economic model. Marine Resource Economics 5:1-
21.

Leschine, Thomas M., Laura Geselbracht, and Jonathan Rubin.
1989. Oil spill damage assessment: Policy
recommendations and summary of findings. Seattle:
Institute for Marine Studies, University of Washington.

Leschine, Thomas M., and Jonathan Rubin. 1989. A proposed
compensation schedule for unauantifiable oil spill
damages. Seattle: Institute for Marine Studies,
University of Washington.

Murrell, Thomas L., et al. 1987. Oil-spill-response measures
for offshore oil and gas ORerations. OCS Report, MMS 87-

E-29

0062. Anchorage: Alaska OCS Region, U.S. Minerals
Management Service.

National Response Team. 1989. The Exxon Valdez oil spill: A
report to the President from Samuel K. Skinner.
Secretary. Department of Trans2ortation and William K.
Reilly. Administrator. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986. Response to oil
spills on Puget Sound. Issue paper. Seattle.

Rubin, Jonathan. 1989. Description and analysis of Alaska's
formula to assess civil Renalties and applications of
this formula to the Port Angeles and Anacortes oil
spills. Seattle: Institute for Marine Studies,
University of Washington.

Rubin, Jonathan. 1989. Economic issues and valuation
concepts fgr natural resource damages and an analysis of
Washington's assessment procedures. Seattle: Institute
for Marine Studies, University of Washington.

Rubin, Jonathan. 1989. Petroleum toxicity and fate in the
marine environment with implications for the development
of a compensation schedule for spilled oil. Seattle:
Institute for Marine Studies, University of Washington.

State/federal natural resource damage assessment 21an for the
Exxon Valdez oil sRill : Public review draft. 1989.
Juneau: Trustee Council.

Sutherland, G. Bruce. 1979. Oil spill Rrotection Plan for
the natural resources of-the lower Columbia and
Willamette Rivers. Portland: Oregon Dept. of
Environmental Quality.

Sutherland, G. Bruce. 1982. A Rlan for protecting the
natural resources of Yaauina Bay. Oregon from oil spills.
Portland: Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality.

Sutherland, G. Bruce. 1983. A plan for Rrotecting the
natural resources of Coos Bay. Oregon from oil sRills.
Portland: Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality.

Townsend, Richard, and Burr Heneman. 1989. The Exxon Valdez
oil spill ; A management analysis. Washington, D.C.:
Center for Marine Conservation.

E-30

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation.
Exxon Valdez oil sRill: Hearing. 101st Cong., 1st sess.,
1989. Serial no. 101-9.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation.
oil pollution and compensation: Hearing. 101st Cong.,
lst sess., 1989. Serial no. 101-11.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation.
Prince William Sound oil spill resRonse act: Hearing.
101st Cong., lst sess., 1989. Serial no. 101-12.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation.
Transporting oil around the Santa Bgrbara Channel
Islands: Hearing. 100th Cong., lst sess., 1987. Serial
no. 100-41.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommitee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment. Review of current laws
for recovering damages caused by spills of oil and
hazardous substances. 101st Congress, lst sess., 1989.
Serial no. 101-28.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. Exxon oil sRill: Hegring. 101st Cong.,
lst sess., 1989. S. Hrg. 101-118.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public
Works. Subcommittee on Environmental Protection.
oilsRill in Prince William Sound. Alaska: Hearing. 101st
Cong., lst sess., 1989. S. Hrg. 101-100.

Offshore Oil and Gas/Hard Minerals Development

Alaska. Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs. Municipal
and Regional Assistance Division. 1984. Resource
development and community impact assistance: Coas:Eal
Enercry Impact Proaram effectiveness gtudy. Juneau.

Benton, David., and C. Deming Cowles. 1989. Oil and water
can mix: The IRM agreement on offshore oil and gas
leasing in the Bering Sea. In Coastgl zone 189, ed.
Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1945-47. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers.

E-31

Bio/Tech Communications. 1989. Proceedings,
Conference/Workshop on Recommendations for Studies in
Washington and Oregon Relative to Offshore oil and Gas
DeveloRment. May 1988. Los Angeles: Pacific OCS Region,
U.S. Minerals Management Service.

Blanchard, Billie C., Mark A. Bachels, and Jonathan Van Coops.
1988. Oil and cras activities affecting California's
coastal zone: Summary reRort. 2d ed. San Francisco:
California Coastal Commission.

Bolze, Dorene, and Mercedes Lee. 1989. Offshore oil and gas
development: The ecological effects beyond the offshore
platform. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et
al., 1920-34. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Cahoon, Donald R., and Joseph C. Holmes, Jr. 1989.
Mitigating oil and gas impacts in coastal wetlands. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1935.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

California Coastal Commission. Energy and Ocean Resources
Unit. 1989. Draft compendium of California Coastal
Commission decisions under the federal consistency
provisions. Phase I. OCS oil and gas drilling and
related onshore facilities. ser)tember 1983-present. San
Francisco.

Centaur Associates, Inc., et al. 1984. Mitigation of sea
floor conflicts between oil and gas pipelines and
.commercial trawl fisheries on the California outer
continental shelf. OCS Study, MMS 84-0058. Los Angeles:
Pacific OCS Region, U.S. Minerals Management Service.

Cicin-Sain, Biliana. 1986. Offshore oil development in
California: Challenges to governments and to the public
@.interest. Public Affairs Report, vol. 27, nos. 1-2.
Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University
of California, Berkeley.

Cicin-sain, Biliana, and Art Tiddens. 1989. Private and
public approaches to solving oil/fishing conflicts
offshore California. Ocean & Shoreline Management
12:233-51.

Cogan, Sharpe, Cogan. 1986. Outer continental shelf policy
study for the Department of Ecolocly. State of Washington.
Portland, Or.

E-32

Craig, Steven J. 1984. An environmental review of potential
outer continental shelf platform fabrication/assembly
yard sites in Washington's coastal zone. Olympia:
Shorelands Division, Washington State Dept. of Ecology.

David M. Dornbusch and Company. 1976. Managgment of OCS-
related industrial development: A guide for Alaskan
coastal communities. Juneau: Division of Community
Planning, Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs.

The Development of petroleum resources from the outer
continental shelf: Legal management problems and
caggbilities in Oregon. 1979. A series of seven reports
to the Governor's outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Development Task Force. Eugene, Or.: Ocean Resources Law
Program, Law Center, University of Oregon.

Fischer, David. W. 1988. Hard mineral resource development
policy in the U.S. exclusive economic zone: A review of
the role of the coastal states. Ocean Development and
International Law 19:101-11.

Fischer, David. W. 1988. Two alternatives in national
governance of marine hard minerals in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone. Ocean Development and International La
19:287-98.

Fischer, David. W. 1989. Approaching a federal-state
partnership for ocean mining. In Coastal zone 189, ed.
Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3441-51. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers.

Fischer, David. W. 1989. Ocean mining: What does it mean for
local governments? Ocean & Shoreline Management 12:81-
88.

Giordano, Anthony C. 1989. Coastal states marine mining
laws. Washington, D.C.: Office of Strategic and
International Minerals, U.S. Minerals Management Service.

Grosso, Richard. 1986. Federal offshore leasing: States'
concerns fall on deaf ears. Journal of Land Use and
Environmental Law 2:249-85.

Hansch, Susan M. 1989. A comprehensive look at the
California Coastal Commission's regulation of offshore
oil and gas operations. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville
T. Magoon, et al., 4235. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

E-33

Hershman, Marc J., David L. Fluharty, and Scott L. Powell.
1988. State and local influence over offshore oil
decisions. Washington State & Offshore Oil and Gas.
Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program, University of
Washington.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1986. Legal framework for Washington
OCS policy options. In Outer continental shelf Rolicy
study for the Department of Ecology. State of Washington.
Portland, Or.: Cogan, Sharpe, Cogan. -

Hildreth, Richard G. 1986. Ocean resources and
intergovernmental relations in the 1980s: Outer
continental shelf hydrocarbons and minerals. In Ocean
resources and U.S. intergovernmental relations in the
1980s, ed. Maynard Silva, 155-96. Boulder, Colo.:
Westview Press.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1989. Federal-state revenue sharing and
resource management under Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act section 8(g). Coastal Management 17:171-91.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1989. Federal-state revenue sharing for
ocean minerals development: The example of Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act section 8(g). In Coastal
zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3452-67. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1989. Legal regimes for seabed hard
mineral mining: Evolution at the federal and state
levels. Ocean DeveloRment and International La 20:141-
56.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1989. Legal regimes for seabed hard
mineral mining: Federal and state developments. In
Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 468-83.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1989. Marine use conflicts arising from
development of seabed hydrocarbons and minerals: Some
approaches from the United States west coast. Ocean &
Shoreline Management 12:271-84.

Holtz, Karen Lyman. 1988. Implications for coastal managers
of hard mineral development in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone. 'Coastal Lianagement 16:167-82.

E-34

Hull, Donald A., and Dennis L. Olmstead. 1989. Heavy
minerals resources offshore Oregon. In Oceans 189, vol.
1, 7-10. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center;
Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Johnson, James C. 1988. A proposal for comprehensive
planning of coastal energy development offshore and
onshore California: The Santa Barbara experience. In
Coastal zone 185, post-conference volume, ed. Hugh
Converse, Orville T. Magoon, and L. Thomas Tobin, 334-46.
San Francisco: Coastal Zone Foundation.

Jones, G. Kevin. 1987. Harvesting the ocean's resources: Oil
or fish. Southern California-Law Revie 60:585-648.

Kahoe, Michael A. 1987. States' role in OCS development: The
California model. In Coastal Zone la7, ed. Orville T.
Magoon, et al., 1914-28. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

MBC Applied Environmental sciences. 1989. Offshore gil and
gas: Riska and benefits. Pacific OCS Region Fourth
Information Transfer Meeting, conference proceedings.
Los Angeles: Pacific OCS Region, Minerals Management
Service.

McCrea, Maureen. 1988. Alaska's coastal program and oil and
gas activities on the outer continental shelf. In
Coastal zgne 185, post-conference volume, ed. Hugh
Converse, Orville T. Magoon, and L. Thomas Tobin, 360-77.
San Francisco: Coastal Zone Foundation.

National Research Council. Committee on Seabed Utilization in
the Exclusive Economic Zone. 1989. Our seabed frontier:
Challenagg and choices. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.

National Research Council. Committee to Review the Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Studies Program. 1989.
The adequacy of environmental information for out2
continental shelf oil and gas decisions: Florida and
California. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nossaman, Krueger & Marsh. 1980. An analysis of aPRlicable
law concerning seabed mineral Rrocessincr in California.
Washington. Oregon. ang Alaska. Submitted to the U.S.
Dept. of Commerce. Los Angeles.

Ocean Resources Assessment Program. Advisory Committee.
1988. Information priorities: Final report. Washington
State & Offshore Oil and Gas. Seattle: Washington Sea
Grant Program, University of Washington.

E-35

Oregon. Governor's Task Force on Outer-Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Development. 1979. Outer Continental Shelf Oil
& Gas Development Task Force: Final report. Salem.

Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task Force. Onshore Impacts
Subcommittee. 1988. Oregon ocean regources management
Rlanning Rroqram: Onshore impacts whitge Raper. Portland.

Rathbun, Sharon E. 1986. Legal mandates and federal
regulatory responsibilities for the Al_aska outer
continental shelf. OCS Report, MKS 86-0003. 2d ed.
Anchorage: U.S. Minerals Management service.

Rothwell, Donald R. 1988. Maritime boundgries and resource
development: Options for the Beaufort Sea. Calgary:
Canadian Institute of Resources Law, University of
Calgary.

Simmons, Malcolm M. 1986. Legislation which protects
offshore and coastal environments. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Strickland, Richard, and Daniel Jack Chasan. 1989. Coastal
Washington: A synthesis of information. Washington State
& Offshore Oil and Gas. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant
Program, University of Washington.

Tostevin, Breck C. 1987. "Not on my beach": Local California
initiatives to prevent onshore support facilities for
offshore oil development. Hastings La_w Journal 38:957-
1011.

Turner, Emmett W. 1989. Conflict resolution in the OCS oil
and gas 5-year leasing program. In Coastal zone 189, ed.
Orville T. Magoon, et al., 1936-44. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers.

U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1983. Proposed
polymetallic sulfide minerals lease offering: Gorda Ridge
area offshqre Oregon and-northern California: Draft
environmental impact statement. Reston, Va.

U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1986. 5-year oute
continental--shelf oil and gas leasing program for January
1987-December 1991: Decision and summary. Washington,
D.C.

U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1987. Proposed 5-year
outer continental shelf oil and gas lgasing program mid-
1987 to mid-1992: Final environmental impact statement.
3 vols. Washington, D.C.

E-36

U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1989. 5-year outer
continental shelf oil and gas leasing program. mid-1987
to mid-1992: Supplemental environmental impact statement.
Draft. Herndon, Va.

U.S. Minerals Management Service. Alaska OCS Region. 1983.
Proposed outer continental shelf arctic sand and gravel
lease sale: Final environmgntal imRact statement.
Anchorage.

U.S. Minerals Management Service. Alaska OCS Region. 1987.
Beaufort Sea sale 97. Alaska outer continental shelf:
Final environmental impact statement. 2 vols.
Anchorage.

U.S. Minerals Management Service. Alaska OCS Region. 1987.
Chukchi sea sale 109: Final environmental impact
statement. 2 vols. Anchorage.

U.S. Minerals Management Service. Alaska OCS Region. 1988.
OCS mining Rrogram. Norton Sound lease sale: DraLt
environmental imRact statement. Anchorage.

U.S. Minerals Management Service. Pacific OCS Region. 1987.
Northern California proposed oil and gas lease sale 91:
Draft environmental impact statement. 2 vols. Los
Angeles.

Williams, Sara. 1986. Handbook for geoRhysical survey
operators for Washington's offshore and inland marine
waters. Olympia: Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management
Program, Washington State Dept. of Ecology.

CZM Consistency Process

Alaska. Office of Management and Budget. Division of
Governmental Coordination. 1987. Alaska Coastal
Management Program: Thq state consistency review Rrocess
regglations. Juneau.

Cogan, Sharpe, Cogan. 1986. Evaluation of state agency
consistency/coordination issues on behalf of the orecron
Coastal zone Management Association. Inc. Newport, Or.:
Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association.

Dahl, Nancy. 1986. Federal consistengy under the Coastal
Zone Management Act revisited. Coastal Law Memo, issue
5. Eugene, Or.: Ocean and Coastal Law Center, School of
Law, University of Oregon.

E-37

Eichenberg, Tim, and Jack H. Archer. 1987. The federal
consistency doctrine: coastal zone management and "new
federalism." Ecology Law Quarterly 14:9-68.

Esler, Eric. 1986. CZMA consistency review: The Supreme
Court's attitude toward administrative rulemaking and
legislative history in SecretaU of the Interior v.
Californ-ia. Ecology Law Ouarterly 13:687-713.

Hildreth, Richard G. 1984. States' rights and federal
powers: Going beyond federal consistency. In Coastal
zone 183, post-conference volume, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
Hugh Converse, and L. Thomas Tobin, 699-707. Sacramento:
California State Lands commission.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. National Ocean Policy Study. Coastal
.zone management consistency Pro isions: Hearing. 100th
Cong., 1st sess., 1987. S. Hrg. 100-372.

State Capacity (Territorial Sea, EEZ, and Coastal Zone)

Adams, Mark B., and Scott T. McCreary. 1989. Institutional
arrangements for state coastal management programs: Some
strengths and weaknesses. In Coastal zone 189, ed.
Orville T. Magoon, et al., 2558-72. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers.

Alaska. Division of Governmental Coordination. 1989. Alaska
Coastal Management Program, statutes and regulations.
Juneau.

Alaska Coastal Management Program. Annual report. Juneau:
Division of Governmental Coordination, Office of
Management and Budget.

Alaska Coastal Policy Council. 1987. Standards of the Alaska
Coastal Management Program. Juneau: Division of
Governmental Coordination, Office of Management and
Budget.

Archer, Jack H. 1989. Resolving intergovernmental.conflicts
in marine resource management: The US experience. Ocean
Shoreline Management 12:253-69.

Archer, Jack H., and Robert W. Knecht. 1987. The U.S.
national coastal zone management program--problems and
opportunities in the next phase. Coastal Management
15:103-20.

E-38

Born, Stephen M., and Allen H. Miller. 1988. Assessing
networked coastal zone management programs. Coastal
Management 16:229-43.

Bossler, John D., and Millington Lockwood. 1988. A
kaleidoscope of issues facing ocean development. In
Coastal zone 185, post-conference volume, ed. Hugh
Converse, Orville T. Magoon, and L. Thomas Tobin, 710-26.
San Francisco: Coastal Zone Foundation.

Bradley, Earl H. 1984. The role of coastal states in the
management of activities in offshore and ocean waters.
Annapolis: Coastal Resources Division, Maryland Dept. of
Natural Resources.

Brower, David J., and Daniel S. Carol, eds. 1987. Managing
land-use conflicts: Case studies in special area
management. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Burgess, James P. 1989. Status of the coastal program: A
federal perspective. In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T.
Magoon, et al., 2529-35. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Butts, Robert. 1988. Management of the marine-and ocean
resources of the Washington coast: An interim report to
the Washington State Legislature. Olympia: Joint Select
Committee on Marine and Ocean Resources, Washington State
Legislature.

Coastal States Organization. 1987. Coastal states and the
U.S. exclusive economic zone. Washington, D.C.

Datta, E. Kyle, ed. 1988. Proceedings of Pacific Basin
management of the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic
zone: A partnership of government and private sectors.
Honolulu: Pacific Basin Development Council.

Edwards, Steven F. 1989. Estimates of future demographic
changes in the coastal zone. Coastal Management 17:229-
40.

Fitzgerald, Edward A. 1987. Exxon v. Fischer: Thresher
sharks protect the coastal zone. Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review 14:561-600.

Giesecke, Anne G. 1987. Shipwrecks: The past in the present.
Coastal Management 15:179-96.

Giesecke, Anne.G. 1988. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act:
Affirming the role of the states in historic

E-39

preservation. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts
12:379-89.

Good, James W., and Richard G. Hildreth. 1987. Executive
summary: Oregon territorial sea management study. Salem:
Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development.

Good, James W., and Richard G. Hildreth. 1987. Oregon
territorial sea management study. Salem: Oregon Dept. of
Land Conservation and Development.

Good, James W., and Richard G. Hildreth. 1987. Territorial
sea management by the state of Oregon. In Coastal zone
187, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3404-13. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Gordon, Ellen L. 1989. Coastal zone management and the
National Estuary Program: Why both? In Coastal zone-189,
ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 4022-28. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Hershman, Marc J. 1985. State government and the EEZ:
Examples from Oregon and Hawaii. Paper presented at the
Governor's Conference on Coastal States Ocean Policy,
Raleigh, North Carolina, Oct. 30-Nov. 1.

Hershman, Marc J. 1989. Ocean management capacity in U.S.
coastal states. In Oceans 189, vol. 1, 99-102.
Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C..-
Marine Technology Society.

Hildreth, Richard G., and Ralph W. Johnson. 1983. Ocean and
coastal laLw. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Hildreth, Richard G., and Ralph W. Johnson. 1985. CZM in
California, Oregon, and Washington. Natural Resources
Journal 25:103-165.

Hope, Michele L. 1989. Archaeology on the federal outer
continental shelf. In Coastal zone lg9, ed. Orville T.
Magoon, et al., 3526-30. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Houck, Oliver A. 1988. Ending the war: A strategy to save
America's coastal zone. Maryland Law Review 47:358-405.

Kaiser, David W. 1989. Shipwreck management and the CZMA.
In Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3545-
53. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

King, Lauriston R., and Amy Broussard, comps. 1987.
Proceedincr_s-, National Conference on the States and an

E-40

Extended Territorial Sea. December 9-11. 1985. College
Station, Tex.: Sea Grant College Program, Texas A & M
University.

Knecht, Robert W., and William E. Westermeyer. 1984. State
vs. national interests in an expanded territorial sea.
Coastal Zone Management Journal 11:317-33.

Littleton, Richard K. 1984. The territorial sea: Prospects
for the United States. Ocean springs, Miss.:
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium.

MacDonald, Craig D., and Howard E. Deese. 1989. A
comprehensive analysis and overview of Hawaii's ocean
industries. In 'Coastal zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon,
et al., 3481-93. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Miller, Marc L. 1989. Coastal tourism planning. In Oceans
1_89, vol. 1, 112-116. Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service
Center; Washington, D.C.: Marine Technology Society.

Mitchell, Ronald R. 1988. State of Alaska coastal and marine
boundary program. In Coastal zone 185, post-conference
volume, ed. Hugh Converse, Orville T. Magoon, and L.
Thomas Tobin, 222-30. San Francisco: Coastal Zone
Foundation.

Oregon. Dept. of Land Conservation and Development. 1988.
Oregon's coastal management program: A citizen's gmide.
Salem.

Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task Force. 1988.
Executive summagy: Managing Oregon's ocean resources,
interim report to the Joint Legislative Committee on Land
Use. Portland.

Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task Force. 1988. Managing
Oregon's ocean resources: Interim report to the Joint
Legislative Committee an Land Use. 1 vol. and appendix.
Portland.

The Oregon ocean resources Rlan: Draft resource management
policies. 1989. Portland: Oregon Ocean Resources
Management Task Force.

Pacific Basin management of the 200-nautical mile exclusive
economic zone: Implications of the EEZ for the American
Flag Pacific Islands (AFPI). Honolulu: Pacific Basin
Development Council.

E-41

Rote, James W., and Craig R. Denisoff. 1989. The state role
in managing the U.S. exclusive economic zone. In Coastal
zone 189, ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 3468-80. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Schell, Steven R. 1987. Resolving permit conflicts in
Oregon's coastal zone. In Coastal Zone 187, ed. Orville
T. Magoon, et al., 2741-60. New York: American Society
of Civil Engineers.

Soden, Dennis L. 1989. Conflict resolution in coastal zone
management: The effects of environmental values,
technical information, and knowledge holding. In Coastal
zone 189., ed. Orville T. Magoon, et al., 4010-21. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

State of California ocean related activities. 1988.
Compilation of the reports given by state agencies and
departments at a workshop held on July 20, 1988.
Sacramento: California Resources Agency.

Swenson, Kenneth W. 1987. A stitch in time: The continental
shelf, environmental ethics, and federalism. Southern
California Law Review 60:851-95.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Establishing the title of states in certain
abandoned shipwrecks. 100th Cong., 2d sess., 1988. H.
Rept. 100-514, pts. 1 and 2.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Extension
Act of 1988. 100th Cong., 2d sess., 1988. H. Rept. 100-
1030.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Oceanography. Territorial
Sea and Conticmous Zone Extension Act of 1988: Hearing.
100th Cong., 2d sess., 1988. Serial no. 100-87.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Oceanography and Great Lakes.
Territorial sea extension: Hearing.. 101st Cong., 1st
sess., 1989. Serial no. 101-7.

U.S. National Ocean Service. Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management. 1988. Coastal management:
Solutions to our nation's coastal problems. Technical
Assistance Bulletin no. 101. Washington, D.C.

E-42

Wade, Susan O'Malley. 1989. California and its adjacent
federal waters. In Oceans 189, vol. 1, 103-11.
Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE Service Center; Washington, D.C.:
Marine Technology Society.

Western Legislative Conference. Ocean Resource Committee. A
leadershiR agenda: State management gf ocean resources.
Lexington, Ky.: Council of State Governments.

Zimmermann, Frederick L., and Mitchell Wendell. 1976. The
Law and use of interstate compacts. 2d ed. Lexington,
Ky.: Council of State Governments.