[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SRAMSOE No. 93 23 1975 AN ASSESSMENT OF ESTUARINE AND NEARSHORE MARINE ENVIRONMENTS PERFORMED FOR THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AS PART OF THE 1975 NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AF "< :001 7 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE QH Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 V 301 V852 no.93 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER .00 July 1975 AN ASSESSMENT OF ESTUARINE AND NEARSHORE 11@[@tFTIVENT OF COMMERCE NOAA MARINE ENVIRONMENTS SERVICES CENTER @J (",L)l H HOBSON AVENUE :@ @!- " '' ' ""@ "NTER Cn'-'@"IL@'- TON SC 29405-2413 Performed for the Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Department of the Interior as part of the 1975 National Water Resources Assessment by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science Editors: Study Team: M. P. Lynch Chapter 1: J. E. Warinner B. L. Laird M. Nolan N. B. Theberge C. G. Becker J. C. Jones R. W. Middleton W. M. Rizzo Chapter 2: P. A. Dales, III M. T. Jacks J. H. Klein Chapter 3: W. R. Kerns I. E. Strand P"-C')Ca@ty of Library Chapter 4: J. E. Warinner M. P. Lynch Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 93 Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 W. J. Hargis, Jr., Director C" July 1975 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA C-3 co COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Virginia Institute.of Marine Science and not necessarily those of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Commonwealth of Virginia. %@J Or ADDRESS ONLY THE DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE United States Department of the Interior 0 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 In Reply Refer To: FWS/OBS jq7 September 9, 1975 1nf6"=0 Dr. Robert Knecht Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce Rockville M ryland 20852 Dear Dr. ;K;@Kt: Enclosed is a copy of the report entitled "An Assessment of Estuarine and Nearshore Marine Environments". The report was prepared for the U.S. Water Resources Council. Much of the information is of general interest, and the increased national concern for the coastal environment should make the document useful to a wide audience. We plan to have the report made available through the National Technical Information Service. Sincerely, Chief, Office of Biological Services Enclosure 0WTI01V 40 1910 4W FOREWORD This report is the result of a study conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), U. S. Department of Interior, to provide background information on estuarine and nearshore marine environments for the U. S. Water Resources Council for use in the 1975 National Assessment of Water and Related Lands. The charge presented to us by USF&WS required a strong emphasis on stresses and threats to resource bases, to enable water resources planners to evaluate impacts of various water resource use projections. In some instances, ad- herence to the charge has resulted in a description of a region or its problems that appears more pessimistic than might actually be the case. Natural Sys- tems such as most of our nation's estuaries have a remarkably great, although unpredictable, resilience and recovery capability from one-time catastrophes (as was demonstrated during the past few years by Chesapeake Bay's recovery from Tropical Storm Agnes' impactsl). This resiliency, however, is strained by continuous low level, apparently innocuous stresses, particularly where many individual minor stresses combine to assault a system in a more or less unremitting manner. State and local initiatives, spurred by Federal guidance and funding, are addressing many of the more serious problems facing the estuaries. There is promise that major programs such as clean water and clean air legislation and coastal zone and land use management are, if not always restoring our estuarine and nearshore systems to their former conditions, at least arresting the precipitous decline of many of these systems and maintaining presently ecologically viable systems. It is hoped that this report will serve as an introduction (albeit brief) to the nation's estuarine and nearshore marine problems for those persons un- familiar with these regions, their resources, and the problems and stresses being applied to these systems as modern civilization attempts to coerce or persuade Nature to act in accordance with the wishes of man. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, modern civilization will learn to coexist peacefully with Nature and many of the problems highlighted in this report will be relegated to the history books. This document was not prepared for those persons knowledgeable and con- cerned about estuarine and nearshore marine environments who might peruse this document in the hopes of obtaining new information and insights with regard to their specific areas of concern. The information contained in this report has been obtained solely from existing sources, but has been given our interpretation and contextual arrangement. We do not accept re- sponsibility for the accuracy of the information used, but responsibility for any inaccuracies of interpretation or presentation is wholly ours. 1"Report on the Effects of Tropical Storm Agnes on the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine System," J. Davis, ed., Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No. 34, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. iii As project coordinator, I wish to express my appreciation to the members of the study@team. who, despite heavy time constraints, managed to bring this document to its present state. Particular thanks must go to Mr. Ernie Warinner, who bore the brunt of the task of pulling the descriptive informa- tion together, Mr. Bart Theberge and Mr. Clay Jones who served the same role with regard to the institutional information, and Drs. Waldon Kerns and Ivar Strand who did the same for the resource information. Ms. Beverly 41 Laird deserves particular mention as the individual who melded all of the disparate sections into this single report in the capacity of day-to-day compositor, editor, and general coordinator. M. P. Lynch Project Coordinator Virginia Institute of Marine Science iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank Dr. David Flemer, the patient Department of Interior Contracting Officers Authorized Representative, and Mr. Keith Bayha, the Coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior regarding the 1975 Water Assessment, for their constant assistance during this study. Members of our study team visited Fish and Wildlife Service regional offices in Alaska, Portland, Atlanta, Boston, and Minneapolis where various personnel assisted in locating needed documents and provided valuable information not available in the literature. Michele Tetley of the Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, deserves thanks for her help in providing us with documents from the OCZM library. Letters requesting assistance in locating publications and information for this study were addressed to many federal, interstate, and state agencies and visits and phone contacts were made with others. Particular thanks go to these agencies for providing the basic information for this report: Environmental Protection Agency Boston Regional Office Athens Regional Office Seattle Regional Office Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis; National Marine Fisheries Service,, Juneau; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Zone Information Center; U. S. Army Corps of Engineers New England Division New York District Philadelphia District Baltimore District Wilmington District Charleston District Jacksonville District Vicksburg District Mobile District New Orleans District Galveston District Sacramento District Portland District Seattle District St. Paul District Chicago District Detroit District Buffalo District Pacific Division Honolulu District; U. S. Geological Survey; v Great Lakes Basin Commission; Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin; New England River Basins Commission; Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Alabama Development Office; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Limited Entry Commission, University of Alaska; American Samoa, Office of the Governor; California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development; Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control; Florida Department of Natural Resources; Georgia Office of Planning and Budget; Hawaii Water Resources Regional Study; Illinois Department of Transportation; Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Minnesota State Planning Agency; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; North Carolina Department of Administration, North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources; Ohio Department of Natural Resources; Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, Oregon Game Commission; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources; Rhode Island Department of Health; South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department; Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs; Washington Department of Ecology; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Detroit Edison. Many thanks for typing drafts and final copy and for assistance in final report preparation go to Ms. Vickie B. Krahn, Ms. Melissa F. Gardy, and Ms. Claudia B. Walthall. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi CHAPTER 1. COASTAL AND NEARSHORE ENVIRONMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Geological History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Tidal Amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Latitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Estuarine Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Description of Estuarine and Nearshore Environments by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 New England Region (01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .,,__@Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ,@,Middle Atlantic Region (02) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 T'--Problems . . . . . 14 South Atlantic-Gulf Region (03)'(North Carolina-Georgia) . . . . . . 15) Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 '@,,@I@rhoblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6 ou J.t Atlantic-Gulf Region (03) (Florida East Coast) . . . . . . . @17. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 @_Problems . . . . . . . ** * ' * , * * , , , , * , * , * * , * * 18 South Atlantic-Gulf Region (03) (East Gulf) . . . . . . . . ... . 19 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Lower Mississippi Region (08) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Texas-Gulf Region (12) (West Gulf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 California-South Pacific Region (18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Problems . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Columbia-North Pacific Region (17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 vii Table of Contents (Cont'd) Alaska Region (19) . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 36 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 36 Problems . . . * ' * ' * ' ' * * * * * ' * ' ' * , * * * * * - - 37 Great Lakes Region (04) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Hawaii Region (20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Caribbean Region (21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Shoreline Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Biological Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 CHAPTER 2. THE STATUS OF ESTUARIES AND ESTUARINE MANAG'EMENT IN THE LEGAL-INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 The State-Federal Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Components of Estuarine Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 State Section 64 New England (Region 01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Middle Atlantic (Region 02) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 South Atlantic (Region 03) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Gulf Coast-Lower Mississippi (Regions 08, 12) . . . . . . . . . . 72 Pacific (Regions 17, 18, 19, 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Great Lakes (Region 04) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Caribbean (Region 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 CHAPTER 3. ESTUARINE RESOURCE HARVEST AND PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . 82 Recent Resource Harvest Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Commercial Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Commercial Fishing by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 The Processing and Wholesaling Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Sport Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Waterfowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Other Wildlife Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Non-Consumptive Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Bird Watching and Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Recreational Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Conflict Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Domestic versus Foreign Fleets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Commercial versus Sport Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Subsistence versus Commercial Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Summary of Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 viii Table of Contents (Cont'd) Future Harvest Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Demand for Fisheries Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Per Capita Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Population and Income Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Projected Increases in Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Supply of Fishery Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Recreation and Hunting Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 CHAPTER 4. IMPACTS OF PREDICTED WATER RESOURCE UTILIZATION . . . . . 109 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Demand/Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Patterns of Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Seasonal and Annual Freshwater Outflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Effects of Increased Consumptive Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 APPENDIX TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 ix LIST OF FIGURES 1.1. Water Resource Council Regions of the estuarine and nearshore environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2. Spawning grounds of herring in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay tributaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.1. Water demand as a percent of supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 x LIST OF TABLES 1.1. A classification of coastal ecol ogical systems and subsystems according to characteristic energy sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Classification of coastal ecological systems and subsystems (Odum, Copeland, McMahan) by Water Resources Council Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3. Examples of west and east coast niche substitutions, Gulf coast equivalents and tropical types when stressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4. Characteristic natural estuarine zone circulation and water quality conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.5. Length of shoreline types for WRC Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 1.6. Habitat areas for WRC Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 1.7. Classification of the tidal wetlands of Virginia . . . . . . . . . 46 1.8. Endangered species of the estuarine and nearshore marine environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2.1. Provisions of the Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1972 (1970)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2.2. General listing of statutes having an impact on estuaries and their natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.1. Estuarine dependent commercial fish harvest by Water Resource Regions, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.2. Most important species of estuarine dependent commercial fish harvest by Water Resource Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3.3. Commercial fishery retail and wholesale activity by Water Resource Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 3.4. Estimated number of salt-water anglers and their catches by Region, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 3.5. Time and money spent on salt-water sport fishing in coastal areas, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.6. Distribution of average annual harvest of diving and dabbling ducks and geese by Water Resource Regions . . . . . . . . 89 3.7. Number of waterfowl hunters by census geographic division, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3.8. Waterfowl hunting by flyways, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3.9. Bird watchers (persons 9 and over) by census division, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3.10. Wildlife and bird photography by census division, 1970 . . . . . . 91 3.11. Number and use of recreational boating by Water Resource Regions, 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.12. Boating installations by regions, 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.13. Present and near-term threats to fish or wildlife harvest by Water Resource Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.14. Relative degree to which estuarine environmental con- ditions adversely affect estuarine activity . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3.15. Degree of compatibility among estuarine uses . . . . . . . . . . . 98 xi List of Tables (Cont'd) 3.16. Per capita consumption of selected species by regions and per capita income, February 1969- January 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3.17. Projected change in population and income for Central Case by Water Resource Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 3.18. Projected maximum sustainable yield for selected species by ocean areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 3.19. Demand and supply of fishery products by market class between 1973 and 1985 . . . . . . . * ' ' * * * * * * * 104 3.20. Summer of 1972 and percentage increase for 1978 in selected outdoor recreation activities in Business Economic Areas (BEA) adjacent to national estuarine zone . . . . . . . . 106 4.1. Consumptive water use by categories-for 1985. Percent change from .1975 and percent of total requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 4.2. Consumptive water use by categories for 2000. Percent change from 1975 and percent of total requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 4.3. Outflows from ASA's in MGD. Monthly flow at 50% chance of being exceeded as a mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 4.4 Outflows from ASA's in MGD. Monthly flow at 95% chance of being exceeded as a mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 xii CHAPTER 1 COASTAL AND NEARSHORE ENVIRONMENTS J. E. Warinner, M. Nolan, C. Becker, R. W.-Middleton, W. Rizzo The characteristics of nearshore and coastal environments and estu- aries are largely determined by such major factors as 1) geological history, 2) tidal amplitude, 3) weather, 4) currents, and 5) latitude. Geological history determines the shape of the shore and estuaries, the shape and extent of the continental shelves, the volcanic islands of the Pacific and Caribbean, and the type of beach along the shorelines. Tidal amplitude together with the shape of the coastal indentation de- termines current velocities and the zonation of biological species and determines to some extent the uses to which estuaries can be put. Weather conditions determine the amount of rainfall, runoff and erosion and the severity of storm-induced damages to coastal areas as well as the shifting of dunes on sandy shores. Longshore currents determine the littoral drift which forms bars and spits and affects the distribution of nutrients and water temperature on both Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Latitude, together with climate, determines the amount and duration of sunlight available for primary production and largely determines water temperature which in turn affects speciation in specific localities. GEOLOGICAL HISTORY Past and present glaciation in the regions of New England north of New York City and in the states of Washington and Alaska is largely re- sponsible for the much sculptured coast, fiord-like estuaries, rock shores and gravelly beaches of these northern regions. The broad conti- nental shelves found along most of the east coast from Georges Bank to Fort Lauderdale and the Gulf coast from Cape Romano to Mexico, together with the relatively flat and low profile of the coastal landforms, permit the development of tremendous stretches of barrier islands which protect the mainland from the forces of the sea. In the tropical seas where the waters are clear and warm, coral reefs are prominent features which pro- tect the shoreline from the full force of the ocean waves. On the west coast, the continental shelf is narrow and much of the coast consists of 01 steep banks or abrupt cliffs resulting in narrow beaches and active ero- sion from wave action. The Caribbean islands of Puerto Rico and 'the Virgin Islands and the Pacific islands of Hawaii, Samoa, and Guam are mountains that rise abruptly from the ocean floor. These lack continental shelves and, being in warm tropical seas, are characterized by coral reefs and beach and bluff configurations of the shoreline. TIDAL AMPLITUDE Tides are large scale rises and falls of sea level diae to the gravi- tational attraction of the sun and moon. This rocking motion in the ocean results in nodes where there is little or no sea level change and regions of large amplitude. In regions of the coast near the nodes, there is little tidal effect while in regions of large amplitude the tidal fluctuation is greater. When the tidal wave reaches the shallow waters of the coast or estuary, it is transformed into a translational wave and the water flows in and out of the estuaries. The shape of the basin may magnify the effect of the tide such as occurs in the Bay of Fundy. The tidal ranges along the Northeast coast and the Pacific Northwest are quite large while those along the Southeast coast and in the Gulf of Mexico are srall. Tidal amplitudes are also small in the Caribbean and in the region of the Pacific islands of Hawaii. The Great Lakes, while not strictly estuarine, are of such size that atmospheric pressure changes and wind over the lakes cause intermittent and irregular seiches which have the same effect on the shoreline as tides. WEATHER Wind and rainfall have a dramatic effect on coastal areas and estuaries. The east coast of the United States and the Gulf coasts are subjected to tropical and subtropical storms and hurricanes with some frequency. These affect the coastlines in several ways. Wind-induced waves may cause sig- nificant damage directly to the shoreline and man-made structures, or storm surges many inundate lowlands causing much flood damage and introducing salt water into predominantly freshwater environments. The winds them- selves may cause significant shifting of sand dunes and the shoaling of estuaries and channels, sometimes closing off lagoons or sounds from ex- change with the sea and opening new channels by breaking. barrier islands. Rainfall from tropical or subtropical storms can have a substantial effect on estuaries by wholesale erosion of inland areas with the subsequent transport of sediment loads downstream into the estuaries. Rivers draining large areas of the country transport large volumes of water. Where such rivers as the Yukon and the Mississippi drain easily erodable soil, sedi- ment loads dumped at the mouths of these rivers cause the formation of large deltas of new land. The Southern California region is very dry with little runoff contrasted with significant runoff and erosion of the young mountains along the North Pacific coast. CURRENTS Large scale currents such as the Gulf Stream and Labrador Current on the east coast and the California currents on the west coast have a sig- nificant effect on water temperatures and species distribution along the coasts. The cold Labrador Current flows southward along the northeast coast of the United States and meets the warm Gulf Stream as it bends away from the southeast coast at Cape Hatteras. This not only results in 2 rough choppy seas off of Diamond Shoals with its deserving name, the 11graveyard of the Atlantic," but results in a rather distinct break in biological species north and south of Cape Hatteras. The prevailing wind direction off Southern California during several months of the year forces the California Current offshore with a resulting upwelling of cool, nutrient-rich deep water over the narrow continental shelf. LATITUDE The temperature of the seas in the lower latitudes, the longer periods of daylight and clear water of the Caribbean and tropical Pacific combine to provide favorable conditions for reef formation around Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Southern Florida, and Hawaii. The temperature regimes, a function of latitude, are largely responsible for the species composition and distribution along the coasts and in the estuaries of the different coastal regions. Latitudinal-related temperature is responsible for the formation of pack ice and glaciers in Alaska, which have strong erosional implications. ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENTS Estuaries have been defined and classified in several ways depending on the point of view of the author. Estuarine zone is defined in the 1970 National Estuarine Pollution Study (80) as: "the geographic zone including the coastal counties between the landward limit of tidal influence and the three- mile limit to seaward" although the "natural estuarine en- vironment extends from the landward limit of tidal influences to the measurable seaward effect of freshwater runoff." Odum, in Fundamentals of Ecology (22) describes an estuary as: Ifa river mouth where tidal action brings about a mixing of salt and fresh water. Shallow bays, tidal marshes and bodies of water, behind barrier beaches are included in the heading of 'estuarine waters'." The U. S. Water Resources Framework Study (1.07) describes the estuary of the lower Mississippi as that area inundated by the Standard Project Hurri- cane with all existing and authorized hurricane protection works in place. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act states: "the term 'estuarine zones' means an environmental system consisting of an estuary and those transitional areas which are consistently influenced or affected by water from an estuary 3 such as, but not limited to, salt marshes, coastal and inter- tidal areas, bays, harbors, lagoons, inshore waters, and channels, and the term 'estuary' means all or part of the mouth of a navigable or interstate river or stream or other body Of water having unimpaired natural connections with open sea and within which the sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage". It is obvious that certain definitions are legalistic while others are functional. Since we are dealing in this report with the nation's water resources, the definition of estuaries and nearshore environments will be rather broadly interpreted. While every estuary and coastal zone is unique, certain similarities exist even among widely separated estuaries that make it possible to classify the hundreds of them into a relatively few types. Table 1.1 is a classification of coastal ecological systems and subsystems according to characteristic energy sources as developed by Odum, Copeland, and McMahan (17). This classification applied to Water Resources Council Aggregated Subareas is shown in Table 1.2. Each biophysical region has a mixture of estuarine and nearshore environments. Ecological niches will be filled by similar types of organisms on the east and west coast and the Gulf coast but not necessarily by the same species. Some examples of the niche substitutions are shown in Table 1.3. The characteristics of estuarine circulation and water quality for different environments of the coastal biophysical regions of the United States are shown in Table 1.4. DESCRIPTION OF ESTUARINE AND NEARSHORE ENXTIRON'MENTS BY REGION (Figure 1.1) New England Region (01) Description The coastline in the New England Region consists of a diverse array of ecological features. The shoreline which constitutes the land-water interface is some 4,350 miles (6999km) long. In the northernmost portion of this region, the coastal zone is characterized by a rugged rocky shoreline with many deep, narrow inlets and coastal islands. There is also a large number of rivers and streams which flow into the coastal waters creating a variety of estuarine and wetlands regimes, rocky shores, and some sandy beaches. 'Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, 33 USC 1155. 4 Table 1.1. A Classification of Coastal Ecological Systems and Subsystems According to Characteristic Energy Sources. Characteristic energy source Categorv Name of Type or stre a A. Naturally Stressed Systems of High Stress Energies Wide Latitudinal Range A-1. Rocky sea fronts and inter- --breaking waves tidal rocks A-2. High energy beaches --breaking waves A-3. High velocity surfaces --strong tidal currents A-4. Oscillating temperature --shocks of extreme temperature channels range A-5. Sedimentary delta --high rate of sedimentation A-6. Hypersaline lagoons --briny salinities A-7. Blue-green algal mats --temperature variation and low nighttime oxygen B. Natural Tropical Ecosystems Light and Little Stress of High Diversity B-1. Mangroves --light and tide B-2. Coral Reefs --light and current B-3. Tropical meadows --light and current B-4. Tropical inshcre plankton --organic supplements B-5. Blue water coasts --light and low nutrient C. Natural Temperature Ecosystems Sharp Seasonal Programming with Seasonal Programing and Migrant Stocks C-1. Tidepools --spray in rocks, winter cold C-2. Bird and mammal islands --bird and mammal colonies C-3. Landlocked sea waters --little tide, migrations C-4. Marshes --lightly tidal regimes and winter cold C-5. Oyster reefs --current and tide C-6. Worm and clam flats --waves and current, inter- mittent flow C-7A. Temperate grass flats --light and current C-7B. Shallow salt ponds --small waves; light energy concentrated in shallow zone C-8. Oligohaline systems --saltwater shock zone, winter cold C-9. Medium salinity plankton --mixing intermediate salinities with some stratification C-10. Sheltered and stratified --geomorphological isolation estuary by sill C-11. Kelp beds --swells, light and high salinity C-12A. Neutral embayments --shelfwaters at the shore C-12B. Coastal plankton --eddies of larger oceanic systems D. Natural Arctic Ecosystems Winter Ice, Sharp Migrations and with Ice Stress Seasonal Programming D-1. Glacial fiords --icebergs D-2. Turbid outwash fiords --outflow of turbid icewater lens D-3A. Ice stressed coasts --winter exposure to freezing D-3B. Inshore Arctic ecosystems --ice, low light with ice stress D-4. Sea ice and under-ice plankton --low light E. Emerging New Systems New but Characteristic Man-Made Associated with Man Energy Sources and/or Stresses E-1. Sewage waste --organic and inorganic enrichment E-2. Seafood wastes --organic and inorganic enrichment E-3. Pesticides --an organic poison E-4. Dredging spoil --heavy sedimentation by man E-5. Impoundment --blocking of current E-6. Thermal pollution --high and variable temperature discharges E-7. Pulp mill waste --wastes of wood processing E-8. Sugar cane waste --organics, fibers, spoils of sugar industry wastes E-9. Phosphate wastes --wastes of phosphate mining E-10. Acid waters --release or generation of low PH E-11. Oil shores --petroleum spills E-12. Piling --treated wood substrates E-13. Salina --brine complex of salt manufacture E-14. Brine pollution --stress of high salt wastes and odd element ratios E-15. Petrochemicals --refinery and petrochemical manufacturing wastes E-16. Radioactive stress --radioactivity E-17. Multiple stress --alternating stress of many kinds of wastes in drifting patches E-18. Artificial reef --strong currents F. Migrating Subsystems that Some Energies Taxed from Each System Organize Areas Source: Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States, by H. I. Od.m, B. J. Copeland, and E. A. McMahan (1974). The Conservation Foundation, in cooperation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Environment, Vol. I, pp. 25-28. 5 z -C z 0 Z c z @o -3 m z n z 0 H : 0 w 13 r w 'm x v r 0 a m I m 0 0 1 1. -4 m -0 0 D, ElI z 1 .0 r 0 0 0 w 0 c 0. 0 m m 0 1 0 0 1 P, :3 mm w r m 0 0 0 0 0 @r m H.0 m m H. a H.I I I I r 0 -m w H. 0" @r@ 00 al H. 0 0 m n I > 0 A,v m !3 v 0 ol m 0 0 0 . H v m 0 m 1 0 Icw0 n z 0 0 m 0 0 0w 4 m m 0 0 1- ElN 4 0 m I I 0 El m @s I" m m 4 0 c wm > c 1 :3 C. nM m ElI m 0 n C, H. 0 Eg 1 0 :11m I o. 14 w 0 1 m m1 0 n El 0 0 1: 0 0 0 mP. m m :1 m 0 m m w 0 m 0 m M 0 0 1 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 w 1 0 0 01 m I . m . z m w c m m x >4 >4 x x x x x x >4 x x x x x x x >4 8 x x >4 x x x x >4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x >4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8 x x x >4 x x x 01 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x >4 x x x x 0 x x 9 9 x x x x x x x x x >4 x x x x x x x x x x x >4 >4 >4 x x x >4 x >4 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x 11 >1 11 >1 11 11M 11 - - 11 Af I I ",f ( P I P IP 4 1 0 Table 1.3. Examples of West and East Coast Niche Substitutions, Gulf Coast Equivalents and Tropical Types when Stressed. Tropical Upper Upper System Type Description of Role Stressed West Coast Gulf Coast East Coast Oligobaline river Clam with great capacity Soft-shell clam Rangia Soft clam mouth to burrow from cold and Mya arenaria Mya arenaria adapt to salinity variation Oyster reef niche American oyster Pacific oyster American oyster American oyster Crassostrea virginica Ostrea gigas Crassostrea virginica Crassostrea virginica Middle salinity General crab carnivore, Blue crab Dungeness crab Blue crab Green crab estuary moving in and out of Callinectes Cancer Callinectes Cancer varying salinity High salinity Top carnivore in bottom Spiny lobster King crab Stone crab American lobster estuary irregularities Panulirus Paralithodes Menippe Homarus Kelp system Algal forests, bottom Macrocystis Laminaria attached seaward of surf Beach and surf Deep digging clam adapted Surf clam Razor clam Surf clam Surf clam zone to heavy energies just Spisula Siliqua Spisula Spisula seaward of breakers Surf zone sand dollar Mellita Denraster Mellita Echinarachnius Intertidal rocks Grazers of intertidal Littorina ziczac Littorina planaxis Littorina irrorata Littorina litorea rocks, periwinkles Littorina scutellata Intertidally protected Balanus amphitrite Gooseneck barnacle Balanus eburneus Balanus balanoides filter feeders, barnacles, Lepas sea lettuce Ulva Ulva Ulva Ulva Coastal plankton Zooplankton eater Anchovy Pacific herring, Menhaden, Threadfin Atlantic herring Sardines Alewives Source: Adapted from Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States, by H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland and E. A. McMahan (1974), Volume I, p. 46 The Conservation Foundation in cooperation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Environment. Table 1.4. Characteristic Natural Estuarine Zone Circulation and Water Quality Conditions. Bio- physical (1) Smooth Shoreline (2) Indented Shoreline (3) Marshy Shoreline Region North Deep near shore, oceanic Deep near shore, oceanic Strong currents in many small Atlantic water, longshore currents water, erratic tidal currents; channels through marsh, some some suspended sand and eddies and tidal pools turbidity, high oxygen clay Ocean water, longshore Generally shallow, sus- Moderate currents in well- Middle currents; suspended mud, pended mud and sand, oceanic defined channels, high dis- Atlantic clay silt water solved organic material, little turbidity, high oxygen Longshore tidal currents Moderate tidal currents, Poorly defined channels, Chesa- highly variable salinities, highly variable salinities, small currents, dissolved peake small amounts of organic some turbidity organic. material., moderate material fluctuation of oxygen Primarily tidal and wave Moderate tidal currents, Small currents, high color, high South induced currents, oceanic highly variable salinities dissolved organi 'cs, highly Atlantic water with mud, clay and some turbidity variable oxygen,. high temperatures silt Clear ocean water, gentle Clear ocean water, gentle High dissolved organics, high Carib- currents, warm temperatures currents, eddies, warmer color, suspended mud, bean throughout the year than ocean very small currents, hot r Clear, generally warm Very small currents, ocean High dissolved organics, high Gulf of ocean water, longshore water with slight turbidity color, very small currents, Mexico currents warmer than ocean slightly to moderately turbid, high temperature Strong wave action Moderate suspended solids, High suspended soilds Southwest cool oceanic water, some erratic currents, high erratic tidal currents, Pacific silt and clay turbidity oxygen, cool warmer than ocean and rivers Strong wave action Moderate suspended solids, High suspended Solids, Northwest cold ocean water, some erratic currents, high erratic tidal currents, Pacific silt and clay turbidity oxygen, cold warmer than ocean and rivers Very cold oceanic Very cold oceanic water, Very cold water, variable Alaska water, usually ice, overlain by some fresh salinity, much line silt, salinities slightly water, high oxygen debris from freezing .depressed Clear, warm ocean Clear ocean water, gentle High dissolved organics, Pacific water, strong wave currents, eddies, warmer color, high suspended mud, Islands action than ocean very small currents, hot Source: The National Estuarine Pollution Study, 1969. Federal Water Pollution Control, Administration, U. S. Department of Interior, Vol. 1V, pp. 74-75. Table 1.4. Characteristic Natural Estuarine Zone Circulation and Water Quality Conditions (continued) (4) Unrestricted River (5) Embayment, Coastal (6) Embayment, Continuous (7) Fiord Entrance Drainage Only Upland River Flow Highly stratified, some Little turbidity, water Little turbidity, high oxygen turbidity, high oxygen, of oceanic character; may be stratified, upper layer temperatures warmer in strong tidal currents fresh, with temperatures summer, colder in winter through inlets warmer in summer, colder in than ocean winter than the ocean Moderate stratification, Generally shallow, small Variable stratification, suspended mud and silt, tides, clear water with suspended mud and silt, high high oxygen, strong lowered salinity, high oxygen, small amounts of currents oxygen organic material Moderate stratification Generally shallow, small Variable stratification suspended mud and silt, tides, clear water with suspended mud and silt, high high oxygen, strong lowered salinity, high oxygen, small amounts of currents oxygen organic material Strong stratification, Some color, small cur- Slight and variable stratifi- high suspended mud and rents, generally shallow, cation, river water cooler clay, strong currents, high dissolved organics, than ocean, slight color, dissolved organics, highly fluctuating some oxygen fluctuation, moderate moderate oxygen oxygen to high suspended sediment Slightly turbid, strong Very small currents, Slightly turbid, eddying currents, river cooler generally shallow, currents, slight stratification, than ocean water quite warm, clear high oxygen ocean water Slightly turbid, strong Very small currents Slight and variable strati- currents, river cooler except in inlet, shal- fication, river water than ocean water low, warm, slight cooler than ocean some turbidity from sand oxygen fluctuation and silt, highly fluctuating oxygen Strong stratification Some suspended silt, Moderate to strong offshore bar formation erratic currents, stratification, high cool, high oxygen cool, high oxygen suspended silt, strong currents, high oxygen cool Strong stratification, Some suspended silt, Moderate to strong offshore bar formation, erratic currents, stratification, high cold, high oxygen cold, high oxygen suspended silt, strong currents, high oxygen, cold Strong currents, high Very cold organic High turbidity with glacial Stagnant below suspended solids water, much ice, surface debris, seasonal freeze- sill depth, very frequently glacial in layer of fresh water, UPS, strong currents little oxygen, origin, very cold high oxygen during runoffs high salinity hydrogen sulfide Slightly turbid, strong Very small currents, Slightly turbid, eddying currents, river cooler generally shallow, currents, slight stratification, than ocean water quite warm, clear high oxygen ocean water 0' 1 C-) WA Sty. CID MONT. N.DAK. MINN. ORE. 0 LAKES WIS...: S. OAK. (04) 10A,40 W Yo. C.q NEV I A. MICH. NE B. I LL, UTAH .NO. Ovilo OLO. M W. VA. KAS. co K'y cr 0 ARIZ. N. MEX TENN- 00 OKLA. (P ARK. MISS. ALA GA. TEx. LA. F- FLA. LOWER!@x G) ALASKA HAWAII Mi, (191 (20) s i S 3 'o (08) (P 0 0 75 0 00 MILES 47-1 MILE @CARI(BBEAN (o 3) 0 0 30MI The different estuarine basins in this region consist mainly of sub- merged river valleys with unmodified mouths or a 2few coastal fiords (54) with a surface area of 385,100 acres (155,815 km ). The major embayments which may be found in the New England Region include: 9 St. Croix River Estuary and Cobscook Bay Penobscot River Estuary Saco River Estuary Great Bay-Piscatagua River Estuary Embayment Merrimack River Estuary Boston Harbor Cape Cod Bay Buzzards Bay Vineyard Sound Narragansett Bay Long Island Sound (also covered in New York) (54). According to the classification system of Odum, Copeland and McMahan (Table 1.1), a large portion of the much dissected coast of Maine with its high tidal range represents a naturally stressed system of wide latitudinal range consisting of rocky sea fronts and intertidal rocks, and high ve- locity channels (Classification A-1 and A-3 and C-1). Rock ledges with pocket beaches are found in the northern section of New Hampshire while the southern portion possesses extensive barrier beaches in front of tidal marshes. The coastline of Massachusetts is extremely diverse. The area ex- cluding Cape Cod has a *very irregular coastline with many indentations. Cliffs and bluffs become apparent with intermingling sections of dunes. The shoreline of the Cape Cod peninsula consists almost entirely of sandy beach varying from relatively narrow barrier beaches along the southern portion to extensive dune formation along the outer sections of the lower Cape. From Buzzards Bay to the Rhode Island border, the coast is a mixture of barrier beaches, deep indentations, low rocky headlands, marshes and ponds. Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and the Elizabeth Islands are located off the southern coast (55,106). The Rhode Island coastline is dominated by Narragansett Bay, a drowned river embayment covering some 170 square miles. The entire coastal area contains many freshwater ponds and lakes as well as saltwater ponds be- hind barrier beaches along the southern coastal area (106). The Connecticut coastline is very irregular with many bays, coves, and offshore islands. Many of the beaches are narrow with the normal tides approaching the backshore. West of the Norwalk Harbor, the coastline be- comes rockier (106). Problems Major Concerns: water pollution wetlands conservation recreation marine transportation (pollution) Significant Concerns: living resources coastal erosion tidal flooding Lesser Concerns: thermal dissipation solid waste disposal extraction of non-living resources (106) Major water quality problems occur over the entire area. Raw and inadequately treated non-industrial and industrial waste loads are the or major cause, but sedimentation problems occur as a result of the pulp and paper, textile and food processing operations. To a large extent, the pollution is related to upstream usage (106). Boston Harbor, Massachusetts is the receptacle for the drainage and waste of four major streams. The major problems are with municipal waste, oil, debris, and refuse pollution. Narragansett Bay, Rhode 'Island, suffers not only from municipal and industrial pollution, but has a Severe problem with oil pollution. Thermal pollution from New England Power's Brayton Point power plant is also a problem (54). Boston, Massachusetts is a major contributor in the problem of ocean disposal and dumping (54). In the region below Maine, shore erosion is a pertinent -roblem .P especially in areas of high development. MassachusettS, especially in the Cape Cod area, has a problem with summer home development and the problems presented by the vast numbers of tourists in the sunmer. In the southern portion of the region, especially Connecticut and Rhode Island, major areas of wetlands have been permanently lost primarily due to filling and development. Major navigation projects are proposed for the Providence River and Harbor in Rhode Island (106). At this time, New England is a net importer of electrical energy and petroleum products. There are strong pressures to build atomic energy plants and petroleum refineries. 12 Middle Atlantic Region (02) Description The Middle Atlantic coastline is dominated by large estuaries, barrier islands and coastal marshes which form in the quiet estuarine and barrier island lagoon environments.(55). The most prominent embayments which may be found in this region in- clude: Raritan Bay-Hudson River (New York Harbor) Long Island Sound Delaware Bay Chesapeake Bay In New York, the western section of Long Island has a very irregular coastline, with numerous deep bays and promontories. The eastern portion becomes regular with very few indentations. The North Shore possesses narrow, rock or pebbly beaches with high bluffs and small marshes. This contrasts with the South Shore's barrier beaches and quiet back bays. The Hudson Estuary above New York City is known for its aesthetic appeal. Scenic overlooks, large estates, and historic and cultural landmarks abound. Regrettably, sections also show the effects of the concentration of people and development. Below this area extensive tidal marshes predominate, with the cliffs of Palisades a striking exception. The Raritan Bay region is characterized by high bluffs and marshlands fronted by narrow beaches intersected by numerous tidal creeks. The region to the south of Raritan Bay consists of long sandy barrier islands with back bays, salt marshes, and meadows that in some areas extend several miles inland. In Delaware and Maryland there are long, low, narrow barrier beaches fronting a series of embayments with infrequent narrow inlets connecting them to the ocean. Virginia has more variation north to south going from barrier island, main- land small buffer islands, mainland and barrier beach (106) . The barrier islands in Maryland such as at Ocean City have undergone extensive devel- opment as compared to Virginia's barrier islands which are principally privately or federally owned conservation areas. Pennsylvania's entire estuarine environment consists of a 45 mile reach of the Delaware River within the tidal influence. Situated in the densely populated megalopolis between Washington and New York City, the Delaware River and estuary is the second largest sea- port in the United States, serving nearly one-tenth of the population, and is the site of the largest concentration of oil refineries on the east coast. Despite this, the estuary contains extensive tidal and freshwater marshes on the upper east coast and is a very productive coastal region (46). The Chesapeake Bay is one of the largest estuaries in the world, with a surface area of approximately 4,400 square miles and a length of almost 200 miles. It is a typical coastal plain estuary with a broad, 13 shallow expanse of water having an average depth of less than 28 feet. Because of the variations in salinities, the Bay supports a wide variety of fish life, is the spawning area and nursery for many ocean fishes and is a favored habitat for the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). If considered as a whole, this region falls into the Virginian classi- fication and acts as a transition zone between Arcadian and Carolinian regions (111) . Oyster grounds, reefs, or "rocks" occur in abundance in the shallow bays of the coast of this region especially from New Jersey southward. One organism which may be found for the first: time on the barrier beaches within this region is the ghost crab (Ocypode @[uadrata The salt marshes of this region are similar in many ways to those found in New England. In New Jersey and Delaware, there is a subtle shift d from the New England type to that more characteristic of the South Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. Here, there are limited areas of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora with saltmeadow grass (Spartina patensi occupying the largest area. There is a similar zonation pattern found oil the eastern shore of Maryland. The western shore of the Chesapeake Bay with its stronger freshwater influence has Spartina alterniflora in areas covered by tides, but giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) often borders tidal streams. In areas of very low salinity, freshwater species such as Olney three-square (Scirpus olnevi) may be found (17). Problems Major Concerns: water pollution wetlands conservation recreation marine transportation (pollul'--ion) Significant Concerns: living resources coastal erosion tidal flooding Lesser Concerns: thermal dissipation solid waste disposal extraction of non-living resources (106) Major water quality problems occur over the entire area. Raw and inadequately treated non-industrial and industrial waste loads are the major cause. Long Island Sound suffers not only from municipal sewage pollution, but also from pollution due to the practice of dumping duck wastes into waters adjacent to the duck farm operations (45). Second home development is putting increasing pressure to develop the coastal land. Nassau and Suffolk counties are also suffering from the effects of large scale dredging 14 and erosion. The barrier beaches on the South Shore are eroding to a vast extent (48). In general, erosion is a consistent problem along the entire length of the Middle Atlantic Region. New Jersey suffers from urban runoff and seepage and salt intrusion into freshwater supplies and is also confronted with the possibility of an offshore nuclear power plant (50). Two U. S. Army Corps of Engineers projects with possible environmental effects are the inland waterway from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake and Delaware Canal) in Delaware and Maryl;@Ad and the Delaware Bay-Chesapeake Waterway in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (62). The major problems are associated with the widening and deepening of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (37). Oil pollution poses a possibility of threat in the Delaware Bay which has the largest concentration of refineries on the east coast. Delaware Bay is unique on the Atlantic coast because it possesses the only naturally sheltered deep harbor in close proximity to refineries and industrial markets. A deepwater port, if constructed, might have major environmental impact on the area (46). Baltimore Harbor is polluted from direct industrial discharges, sewage overflows, urban runoff, and municipal sewage. There is also the spoils disposal problem from the maintenance dredging of the harbor. As with the Delaware Bay, a possible environmental impact is conceivable if the plans for a deep-draft channel are carried out (84). The greatest pollution problems in the Chesapeake Bay occur in its constricted sub-estuaries downstream fromurban and industrial concentra- tions. Sewage represents the biggest input especially in the Potomac and James estuaries. The Susquehanna River suffers from municipal, industrial, and acid mine wastes. There is also a serious problem with erosion along the shores of the Bay. The proposals to divert water from the Susquehanna River and enlarge the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal could have major effects upon the water quality, salinity patterns, and circulation patterns of the upper Chesapeake Bay (63). South Atlantic-Gulf Region (03) (North Carolina-Georgia) Description In the South Atlantic Region, the coastline is a vast expanse of barrier islands, marshes, and estuaries. Along most of the North Carolina coast extends a series of barrier islands known as the Outer Banks. Behind the islands lie large estuaries containing small islands, and the mainland shore. The primary difference between these barrier islands as compared to those further north is the distance between the islands and the mainland. The Outer Banks lie 20-30 miles off the mainland while further north about 10 miles is the greatest distance between barrier islands and mainland. 15 4 There are two types of islands: the natural and the stabilized. The natural island has a wide beach and a zone of low, irregular dunes which are broken periodically by overwash beaches. The stabilized island possesses a narrow beach zone, with high artificial foredunes maintained by transplanted and fertilized growths of American beachgrass, Anaftophild br&viligulata (55). Major estuaries of the South Atlantic Region are: Pamlico River Alligator River 4 Pamlico Sound Croatan Sound Cape Fear Bogue Sound Georgia Salt Marshes New River Albemarle Sound Topsail Sound Currituck Sound North Carolina possesses more acres of oyster beds than all the other states in this region combined. This reflects the extensive shallow water areas behind the barrier islands and the waters are less turbid than those in Georgia (112). The Pamlico River is one of the major rivers in this region. This estuary is wide and shallow with wide sandy areas along the shore. The marshes behind the Outer Banks of North Carolina consist of either vast, pure stands of black needlerush, primarily Juncus roeme-rianus, or stands of Spartina patens that resemble the salt meadows of New England. The area south of Cape Lookout, North Carolina is the region for optimum development of salt marshes in the United States. These low marshes char- acterized by vast expanses of smooth cordgrass, Spartini*alterniflora, form behind narrow barrier islands in areas influenced by heavy silt de- position from large rivers. There is only a small amount of open water behind the barrier islands. This region includes the famous Sea Islands of South Carolina and Georgia. The broad, level expanses of grass and soft sediment develop dendritic creeks and deep tidal channels in vast number that are characteristic when viewed from the air (17). Problems Major Concerns: water pollution wetlands conservation coastal erosion tidal flooding phosphate mining Significant Concerns: thermal dissipation living resources recreation conservation of barrier islands Lesser Concerns: solid waste disposal extraction of non-living resources 16 The type of problem confronting this region is closely correlated with the type of shoreline normally found--barrier islands and marshes. The conservation of the marshes and the effects of water pollution upon this type of habitat are two of the primary problems concerning this region. Pulp mills present a problem in North Carolina and also in Georgia, par- ticularly around Brunswick. Brunswick is also the area that is suffering from chemical processing pollution. The barrier islands on the east coast in conjunction with the rise in sea level are moving toward the mainland. This is a natural process that maintains the integrity of the islands. The problem arises when man attempts to build on these islands to stabilize this environment. Erosion is a real problem on the barrier islands of North Carolina and South Carolina. North Carolina is confronted with the problems of second home develop- ment and possible reservoirs along the coast. The Cape Fear River is scheduled for four nuclear power plants. Potential environmental impact may be mitigated by use of closed cycle cooling for these plants. Other problems of the area include nuclear power plants and nuclear processing plants in the Savannah River of Georgia and possible rediversion of the Cooper River to the Santee River in South Carolina (64). This re- diversion is planned to reduce shoaling in the Cooper River system, but may adversely impact some features of the Santee system. The present flow of the Cooper River results from a diversion of Santee River water in 1942. South Atlantic-Gulf Region (03) (Florida East Coast) Description The South Atlantic Region of East Florida consists of the shoreline extending from the Florida-Georgia border to the Florida Keys. This coastline consists of barrier islands occasionally broken by inlets. These barrier islands typically consist of high energy sand beaches with pro- ductive marshes or estuaries on the landward side. The shoreline is closely connected to the barrier islands by inlets and contains large amounts of marshland and riverine swamp estuary (61f). The area is highly productive of a number of estuarine-dependent fish and shellfish, including bluefish, menhaden, American shad, porgy, croaker, mullet, spotted seatrout, pompano, spot, flounder, striped bass, anchovies, sea catfish, shrimp, crabs, oysters, clams, and scallops, and wading birds (84). The area has been extensively developed, subjecting these ecosystems to various stresses. 17 Major estuaries of the area include the following: St. Mary's River St. Johns River Mosquito Lagoon Banana River Biscayne Bay Problems Major Concerns: domestic wastes beach erosion Significant Concerns: thermal additions industrial discharges heavy metals pesticides petrochemicals Lesser Concerns: dredging The extensive residential development of this coast has caused severe pollution problems from untreated or inadequately treated sewage. This lack of treatment causes elevated levels of bacteria and increased BOD (40). This results in elimination of organisms from the estuary and renders others unsafe for human consumption. Effluent discharges, thought to be carried out to sea by the Gulf Stream, have been found to be carried back into estuaries by countercurrents and tides (41). Eutrophication from increased nutrient levels has resulted in increased turbidity, nuisance algae blooms, and fish kills. Heavy sewage pollution has already impaired water quality in the St. Johns River, the coast between St. Johns River and Turkey Creek, Turkey Creek itself, St. Lucie River, West Palm Beach, and most of Dade County (110). The consequently high bacterial levels have caused curtailment of the shellfish industry and accelerated the eutrophication of many estuaries. Such development is expected to be heavy in the near future, compounding an already serious problem (61f). Thermal additions from industry or power generation. alter habitat, kill organisms, increase levels of toxic heavy metals, and alter the regular behavior of fish (31,57). Thermal loading problems have been evi- dent in Biscayne Bay, necessitating a change to closed cycle cooling. The coast between St. Mary's River and St. Johns River, the St. Johns River itself, the Oklawaha River, and the Miami area are experiencing problems with industrial pollution. Industrial growth is expanding in the region and continued growth is likely for some tiME! (107,10_9)@ 18 Heavy point discharges of heavy metals, pesticides, and petrochemical and other wastes are also widespread, but less of a problem than the do- mestic pollution problems. Toxic levels of such wastes reduce the den- sity and diversity of organism and pose public health problems (107,109). Residential and industrial development results in loss of habitat from filling or draining of marshland and from construction (16). Dredging, channelization and spoil disposal cause loss of habitat, altered estuarine circulation, increased turbidity and siltation, and altered salinity, which result in impairment of biological productivity (16). Maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway and artificial passes will necessitate continued dredging with its related problems. The Corps of Engineers is also involved with many beach erosion control projects in East Florida involving construction of jetties, groins, bulkheads, sea- walls, and revetments, with corresponding problems of habitat loss, in- creased turbidity and siltation (61f). South Atlantic-Gulf Region (03) (East Gulf) Description The East Gulf area consists of the Gulf coast from Key West north to the Louisiana - Mississippi border and includes a large variety of es- tuarine habitats. Major estuaries found in this region include: Florida Bay Charlotte Harbor Tampa Bay Apalachee Bay St. Georges Sound Apalachicola Bay Choctawatchee Bay Mobile Bay system Pascagoula and Pearl Rivers Almost the entire Florida Gulf coast from Key West to Apalachee Bay is characterized by productive mangrove swamps or salt marshes, with only intermittent high energy sand beaches. Offshore barrier islands are pre- sent from Key West to Anclote Key. In the Ten Thousands Islands area the shoreline is a complex system of tidal creeks and mangrove swamps with islands separated by shallow tidal lagoons and natural passes. Sand beaches are infrequent in this area. The shoreline from Anclote Key to Apalachee Bay has almost no barrier islands but consists of salt marsh and inter- mittent sand beaches. Apalachee Bay to the Alabama border has a shoreline 19 almost completely dominated by high-energy, wide sand beaches with large dune formations with many estuaries behind them (61f,84).. The south Florida area of the Everglades and the Ten Thousand Islands is the nursery ground of the pink shrimp which support a large fishery at the Dry Tortugas. It is also an important nursery of tarpon, snook, spot- ted sea trout, pompano, blue crabs and spiny lobster. C@,sters grow on the roots of the mangroves. The area is the northern limit of many tropical species and is the home of many endangered species including the Everglades Kite, Florida Great White Heron, Southern Bald Eagle, Cape Sable Sparrow, Brown Pelican, Florida Mangrove Cuckoo, American alligator, American croc- odile, Key deer, manatees, and Caribbean monk seals, and the endangered tropical species such as the.Wood Ibis, Roseate Spoonbill, eastern Reddish Egret, and the osprey (61f,84),' The Alabama coast is characterized by high energy sand beaches up to Mobile Bay. At the west end of Mobile Bay, barrier islands again occur offshore, and the mainland shoreline is split between high energy sand beach and tidal marsh to the Mississippi border (61f,84). The short Mississippi Gulf coastline is in actuality formed entirely of offshore barrier islands, which are characteristically composed of high energy sand beaches grading to salt marsh in the center. The mainland shoreline has salt marshes with occasional narrow beaches from the Alabama - Mississippi border to Biloxi Bay (61f). From Biloxi Bay westward across Harrison County and the eastern half of Hancock County, the entire shore- line has been altered by seawall and artificial beach, unbroken by indus- trial developments. The remaining half of Hancock County to the Louisiana border consists of brackish and freshwater marsh (Pearl River 'Delta). The entire east Gulf area provides habitat and important nursery grounds for estuarine dependent fish and shellfish such as menhaden, penaeid shrimp, blue crabs, oysters, spotted sea trout, croakers, mullet, snappers, red drum, pompano, flounders, and catfishes. In addition, the region is vitally im- portant to migratory waterfowl and wading birds, as well as endangered species such as the American alligator and Brown Pelican (61f,84). Problems Major Concerns: domestic and industrial pollution dredging diversion of freshwater flows Significant Concerns: pesticides electric power pulp and textile mill wastes filling of marshes Lesser Concerns: ditching and draining 20 Residential development characteristically causes habitat degradation by fill and increased siltation, increased levels of pesticides from mos- quito and beachfly control programs, and increased bacterial loading from inadequately treated sewage and septic tanks (16,100). Pollution from domestic and industrial sources has caused accumulation of pesticides, heavy metals, and bacteria in such items as oysters and fish and have also endangered such species as the Osprey, Brown Pelican and Bald Eagle (100). The Gulf coasts of Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama are subject to similar stresses. Industrial development has effects which vary with the industry, but heavy development characteristically increases levels of heavy metals, turbidity, and petrochemical waste, causing reduction in biological pro- ductivity and/or production of fish and shellfish which are unsafe for human consumption (16,100,107). Power demand will increase in the future. The manner of meeting this demand is uncertain on the whole, but is likely to be met with a combi- nation of nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. A power generating com- plex consisting of two fossil fuel and one nuclear plant is in operation on the Crystal River in Florida, and has been demonstrated to affect the natural densities of fish in winter and summer, to have deleterious effects on all flora and fauna near the effluent canal, and to increase the concen- trations of heavy metals in oysters growing near the effluent canal (19,20). Excess heat has altered the behavior of the fish communities, causing un- usually high concentrations of fish around,effluent canals during the winter and low concentrations during the summer. Offshore development of the petroleum resources of the Gulf is pro- ceeding, producing the possibilities of chronic and acute oil spills. The installation of buried pipelines and access to shore facilities requires the dredging of canals, resulting in perturbations in circulation and sedi- mentation patterns as well as providing another source of oil spillage (11,16,57). The development of pulp and textile mills and other industries has added to the number of point sources of pollution in Florida especially around Pensacola and Apalachicola bays (84,100). Dredging and channelization projects are widespread. In Florida the largest such project is the proposed cross-Florida barge canal which would involve extensive dredging and channelization, resulting in large scale spoil disposal problems, habitat loss, reduction of freshwater flow to the Everglades, altered circulation patterns, and increased sedimentation and turbidity (2,3,16). Other projects in Florida involving dredging and channelization are presently underway and will continue in the future. These include con- struction and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway, maintenance of 21 a channel in several harbors, and construction and maintenance of artificial passes (61f,84). Maintenance of a 40-foot ship channel in Mobile Bay contributes to altered circulation patterns, and increased salinity intrusion, local turbidity and siltation (84). Mobile is also studying the possibility of becoming a superport, which would involve magnification of the present problems and would spur onshore development. Extensive shell dredging is also done in Alabama waters, especially Mobile Bay, causing increased turbidity and loss Of OyStE!r setting grounds (1,2). Dredging.problems in Mississippi appear to be confined to maintaining a deep draft port in Gulfport, Mississippi, and to occasi'onal local shell dredging (84). All types of development are expected to increase in the Florida part of the region. Industrial development is likely to be heaviest near Tampa, but residential and recreational development is likely to be less concen- or trated and much more extensive (61f,84,100). The mainland coast of Alabama from Gulf Shores eastward has been extensively developed as a residential and tourist community. This has resulted in filling of marshes on the eastern shore of Mobile Bay. The western shore of Mobile Bay contains both residences and industry. Extensive future development of residences and tourist facilities is anticipated (61f). Heavy industrial and residential development in Alabama has been largely confined to Mobile Bay, where it has produced extensive pollution problems from heavy metals, pesticides, and bacteria sufficient to result in closure of one-third of the bay to shellfishing (1). The coastline of Mississippi has been more extensively industrialized, and residential and commercial development is widespread. The western half of Hancock County is unsuitable for development, as it is a coastal marsh subject to frequent flooding and is unprotected by seawall. Rebuilding from the ravages of Hurricane Camille is continuing and additional recre- ational development is anticipated (61f). Mississippi has numerous point discharges of industrial and domestic pollution, with greater industrialization planned for the future (107). Damming, dredging, and channelization cause habitat loss, reduction of nutrient and detritus flow, and altered salinities, all of which decrease biological productivity (16). Physical alterations of bays or upstream tributaries by clearing, ditching, and draining, greatly increase turbidity and siltation, driving out fish and shellfish. Altered salinities result which affect many organisms such as oysters. Lowered pH from introduction of tannins and lignins may also result (16). 22 146 The Everglades are unique habitats acutely sensitive to.freshwater supplies. Severe curtailment of freshwater inflow can be expected to decrease the overall amount of mangrove and marsh habitat. Moderate alteration would affect the salinities and flushing of these systems causing additional physiological stress on the fauna and lengthening the residence time of pollutants (16,59). Lower Missis6igpi Region (08) Description The Lower Mississippi Region includes the Louisiana Coast. Louisiana has a Gulf coastline composed of high energy sand beach in the western third of the state and barrier islands in the rest of the state with their associated high energy sand beach, marshes and sounds. The eastern portion of the state is dominated by the deposition of mud and silt occurring on the Mississippi delta, providing a habitat suitable for extensive marsh- land (61f,84). The Lower Mississippi Region leads the United States in the production of shrimp, and supports many other important estuarine dependent commercial. fisheries, including oysters, crabs, clams, red drum, spotted sea trout, croakers, menhaden, mullet, flounders and catfishes (32,33,61f,84). The area is also vitally important to migratory waterfowl and endangered species such as the Brown Pelican and American alligator (84). Louisiana (the Mississippi River Delta area) has more estuarine area and marsh than any other state except Alaska. The area also has fish catches exceeding one billion pounds, almost one-third of the U. S. total. Major estuaries of the region are: Lake Borgne Breton Sound system Mississippi Delta Barataria Bay Terrebonne Bay Caillou Bay Atchafalaya Bay Blanche Bay Vermillion Bay 23 Problems Major Concerns: domestic pollution draining and filling Significant Concerns: commercial fish processing wastes oil spills heavy metals dredging Lesser Concerns: electric power expansion The region is beset with a number of water quality problems. Domestic waste has affected the shellfish industry by forcing closure of grounds due to high bacterial counts. This is a result primarily of poorly treated sewage. Elevated nutrient levels encourage algal blooms generating high .BOD. Resultant oxygen lows sometimes cause fish kills (16,329MJ07). Wastes from commercial fish processing plants are also considerable in the region. These discharges threaten the shellfish industry and are expected to increase in the future with population increases (32,61f,84,107,109). Industrial pollution is primarily from point sources outside the coastal zone proper, except in the Mississippi River which has considerable upstream pollution input. Industrialization is also expected to increase, causing continued problems with acids and heavy metals. The impact is expected to be greatest in the Mississippi delta region (84,107,109). As industrialization and residential development continue, electric power consumption will continue to increase. The demand is expected to be met with the construction of approximately 20 new power plants (105). Asso- .P ciated problems include increased heavy metal and suspended solid concen- trations (19,20). In the coastal zone proper, oil and sulfur industries threaten productive marshes with oil spills and loss of habitat due to construction and/or seismic exploration techniques (11,57,107). Industries such as the petrochemical industry discharge heavy metals and acid wastes into the rivers, especially the Mississippi and Calcasieu rivers (107,109). The petroleum industry in Louisiana is already large and causes problems with acute and chronic oil slicks, injurious to both organisms and habitat. Offshore development threatens to increase these problems and introduce new ones. Offshore exploration, if accompanied by rig and pipeline construction, will alter the circulation of estuaries and temporarily disturb the sediment, increasing turbidity and siltation damaging to all biota, particularly to shellfish. Of greater significance, offshore development will, spur onshore development, accelerating loss of marsh habitat (11,16,117,107). 24 Loss of marsh habitat has also occurred by draining for agriculture and filling for construction. Continued development will result in further loss. Dredging and channelization have occurred extensively in Louisiana affecting nearly all geological and biological features. Types of envir- Onments altered to date include tidal connections with the sea, open bays, oyster reefs, shallow shoreline zones, beaches, tidal flats, submerged aqua.ticve*et:.st7LoA, marshes, river deltas, and their distributaries. Alterations of any one environment often affects the others through changes in circulation, increased turbidity, and increased sedimentation. Erosion control projects present the same kind of effects. Nevertheless, massive flood control, channelization, dredging, and erosion control projects are scheduled for the future by the Corps of Engineers (16,61f,84,107). In addition, recent superport studies have approved the construction of a superport between Bayou LaFourche and Southwest Pass. Construction of such a port would require extensive dredging of a channel up to 90 feet deep (31 84). Texas--;-Gulf Region (12) (West Gulf) Description The West Gulf region consists of the shoreline and coastline of the state of Texas. The Texas coastline is predominantly composed of high energy sand beaches with protecting offshore barrier islands, important as nesting and wintering areas for many species of birds (59,61f). All Texas estuaries are characterized by year-round high temperatures. Most of these estuaries are characterized by low but extremely variable salinities, shallow depth, and reduced tidal action (15 59). Sedimen- tation, especially from rivers, is pronounced and bottom sediments are generally mud. These..are areas of high nutrient input, large expanses of salt marsh, and extensive oyster reefs, resulting in high biological productivity (59, 84). Texas also has two semi-landlocked lagoons, Upper and Lower Laguna Madre, characterized by high temperatures and high and variable salinity. These are regions of lowered biological activity (15, 59). In addition, Texas has one large estuary of low salinity, Sabine Lake, which may become fresh during periods of high freshwater runoff and may become almost com- pletely devoid of marine life. The Region supports many endangered species, such as the Whooping Crane, Brown Pelican, Peregrine Falcon, red wolf, and American alligator. Thirty-one of thirty-eight bird species listed as endangered in 1968 may be found along the Texas Coast (59 84). 25 The Texas Coast is a large wintering area for waterfowl, and an esti- mated 78 percent of the world population of Redhead ducks winters in Laguna Madre. Ninety percent of all commercially important SPE'Cies of fish and shellfish spend significant parts of their life cycles; in Texas estuaries including menhaden, red and black drum, spotted. sea trout, blue crabs, oysters, and penaeid shrimp. Texas accounts for 1.3 percent of the world shrimp harvest (59, 84). All of these systems have various reactions to the stresses made upon them by man's activities. Major estuaries of the region are: Sabine Lake Galveston Bay system Brazos River Matagorda Bay San Antonio Bay Corpus Christi Bay Nueces Bay Baffin Bay Laguna Madre Problems or Major_Concerns: domestic sewage and surface runoff freshwater supply Significant Concerns: electric power expansion industrial expansion shipping dredging dredging for pipeline and access to shore facilities Lesser Concerns: oil contamination Present and proposed chemical and physical alteratioi.-is of @rexas estuaries are many and varied. Pollution from municipal and domestic sewage and surface runoff is a big problem. Sewage facilities are severely overtaxed in recreational areas. Discharge from individual systems, i.e. septic tanks, is unde- termined but thought to be substantial. Two-thirds of the 368 waste- water treatment plants in the Texas coastal zone are producing poor 26 quality effluents. Fifteen of 171 domestic solid waste disposal sites are substandard. Surface runoff of heavy metals and pesticides is not quantitatively known but is detectable in many estuarine waters and sediments, and is likely to increase with expanding future developments (59). Poor waste treatment poses threats to the recreational and shellfish industries (59,107). High bacterial levels make shellfish unsafe for human consumption. This problem is accentuated during periods of high runoff, when shellfishing is often halted until levels are determined to be safe (59). Organic pollution from urban and agricultural areas increases nutrient levels which cause nuisance algal blooms, and may be responsible for fish- killing red tides. Oxygen demand is also heightened and further lowers biological productivity (59,107). Electric power generation is expected to increase from 139,010 GWH in 1975 to 301,310 GWH in 1985 to 877,410 GWH in 2000, an increase of six- fold. Nuclear power is expected to supply 75 percent of the total gener- ated in this region by the year 2000. Saline water withdrawal for cooling purposes is expected to increase from 3,054 MGD to 17,067 MGD in the same period (18). Petroleum and gas are the major industries in the Texas coastal zone and account for 50 percent of the petrochemical and 25 percent of the oil refining capacity of the nation. Acute and chronic oil spills threaten marine life with short and long term effects. Brine discharge from re- fineries can raise the salinities of estuaries, with subsequent ecological effects (15, 59). This problem has been recognized and at present there is no discharge of brine into surface waters. Texas reserves are mature, and offshore development is being studied. Offshore development will re- quire pipelines and extensive onshore development involving extensive initial and maintenance dredging, habitat destruction, chronic leaks, and possible massive spills. Heavy metals and pesticides threaten the fish and shellfish industries by direct kills and production of organisms unsafe for human consumption. These pollutants are concentrated whenever flushing time is reduced, and by canals which act as transport flumes. Sulfur mining is an important Texas industry. Sulfur occurs within the caprock of salt domes and is mined by injection of hot water to melt the sulfur, which is recovered through return wells. It is used primarily for production of sulfuric acid. Known reserves at present production 27 levels are not expected to last longer than 20 years. Further sources are expected to come from offshore domes (59). Extensive shell dredging mostly in San Antonio Bay provides a local limestone supplement. This dredging increases the turbidity of the estuary, silts valuable marshland and oyster reefs, and reduces oyster setting. Current Texas reserves are unknown but are expected to be depleted soon at the present consumptive rate (16, 59). Paper and textile mills and metal and plastics industries are all located along the Texas coastal zone, but have minor impact compared to the petroleum industry. These industries are sources of BOD, suspended solids, phenols, cyanides, fluorides, ammonia, oils, acids, and metals (59). Extensive new industrial facilities are scheduled for the Corpus Christi area, and a new freon plant is scheduled for Nueces Bay (84,107). Agriculture is a source of herbicides, insecticides zmd pesticides, which may arrive in estuaries. These have been found in estuarine waters, but even where they do not occur in the water column, they have been found in the sediment (59). Feedlot runoff has provided an undetermined, but extensive source of nutrients and bacterial contamination of estuaries. The livestock and poultry industries in the Texas coastal zone account for a substantial por- tion of the industry in Texas (59). There are eleven major ports in the Texas coastal zone, handling 90 percent of Texas shipping. The feasibility of offshore terminals and super- ports is being explored, which involves initial and maintenance dredging and construction of onshore facilities. Superports would involve even larger amounts of dredging, greater support facilities, and greater alteration of circulation patterns. Both Galveston and Corpus Christi have developed 45 foot channels (59). Texas bays and estuaries have been and will be extensively dredged and channeled for transportation, access canals, and shell dredging. There are 668 miles of transportation canals and 3,120 miles of drainage and irrigation canals at present, and plans are underway for more, particularly in south- western Texas. The associated spoil from these operations, has been used to fill valuable marsh areas in the past. Key Allegro, once a valuable nursery ground for many marine species, has been eliminated by fill. Nearby land reclamation for housing developments has also eliminated valuable habitat. Similar developments are planned for Houston and Galveston. Development has also eliminated a population of sea turtles from Padre ISland. Diking and draining of marsh to provide cattle grazing land have occurred on Kamay Island, Matagorda Island, and the Guadalupe delta (59). Land reclamation by filling of bays and marshlands for shorefront development provides sediment for erosion, destroys valuable habitat, and affects the flushing time of estuaries (15,59,107). 28 Transportation canals, water canals, artificial passes between Gulf and estuary, jetties, piers, groins, and platforms alter the normal circu- lation patterns of these bays, causing scouring in some areas and depo in other areas. This deposition of silt destroys productive marsh and grass beds and oyster reefs. Artificial passes increase the tidal surge through existing bay-Gulf channels, increasing the vulnerability of the coastline to storm destruction. These canals and passes also require continuous maintenance dredging (16,33,59). Water supplies are already inadequate for Corpus Christi, and plans are underway for building a reservoir on the Nueces River. Upstream water use has reduced tributary flow to Corpus Christi Bay to a point that this estuary becomes hypersaline most summers. Other dams are planned for the Navidad River,.and the Guadalupe and San Antonio Basins. Other sources of fresh water are expected to be derived by diversion and extension of the coastal canals of the Texas water system. These canals require extensive initial and maintenance dredging. Depletion of freshwater aquifers has resulted in land subsidence and saltwater intrusion into remaining aquifer supplies, especially in the Galveston - Baytown area (59). Reservoir dams built to meet the freshwater consumption needs of the Texas coastal zone, reduce flow into the estuaries, altering their circu- lation patterns, increasing siltation, and reducing the amount of flushing. Reduction of flushing lengthens the amount of time pollutants remain in the bays and estuaries, aggravating the overall pollution problem. Sedimentation is naturally rapid in Texas estuaries which receive signif- icant tributary flow and is being increased by man. Central and Southwest estuaries receive little flow and are clear. Residential and industrial development, overgrazingwaste disposal, burning, and dredge spoil depos- ition threaten acres of marshland and barrier islands. Destruction of marsh- land increases erosion, shortening the life-span of Texas bays, silts oyster reefs, and threatens shoreline structures with slumping (59). California-South Pacific Region (18) Description The California coast is characterized by small, widely spaced estuaries, except for San Francisco, San Diego, and Tomales Bay. The shoreline is basically resistant rock with 41 percent being rocky headlands and cliffs, 36 percent sand beaches (61i). Coastal watersheds are short and steep and the continental shelf is narrow everywhere except off of San Francisco Bay where river transported sediments have formed a crescent-shaped shelf. San Francisco Bay, Tomales Bay, and Bolinas Lagoon are examples of tectonic estuaries called grabens. These are estuaries that have been formed by a fault block subsiding and filling with sea water and receiving land drainage. San Diego Bay is partially enclosed with spits while other small estuaries are enclosed seasonally by bar formation. 29 Principal estuaries of the region are: San Diego Bay Monterey Bay Mission Bay Half Moon Bay Anaheim Bay San Francisco Bay San Pedro Bay San Pablo Bay Santa Monica Bay Suisun Bay Mugu Lagoon San Joaquin Estuary San Luis Obispo Bay Tomales Bay Morro Bay Humboldt Bay The tidal range is approximately five feet and complex ocean circula- tion patterns exist off the California coast. During the winter, the north-flowing Davisons current predominates inshore and. the south-flowing California current offshore. During the summer, coastal upwelling inter- rupts the Davisons current but brings needed nutrients to the coastal waters (84). .Annual rainfall averages from 10 to 50 inches, south to north. Pro- longed summer droughts make the Southern Califor nia coasts and land behind them a special problem. Freshwater outflow is too sporadic to allow es- tuarine development (84). Waterfowl such as the Greater Scaup, Pintail, Canvasback, Black Brant, Wigeon, Scoter, Ruddy Duck, Snow Goose, Canada Goose, Mallard, and Shoveler need the coastal wetlands and estuaries as wintering gi7ounds. San Pablo Bay'is 4 wintering site for the Canvasback, a species whose numbers are ..now low. The Mallard, Cinnamon Teal, and Gadwall also breed within this .zone. Thirty-three species of shore birds frequent this zone as a resting and feeding area. They join many resident birds such as the Elegant Tern C@ .whose nesting colony in Sari Diego Bay is the-only one in the United States. The endangered Light-footed Clapper Rail is present in the southern part of the zone and the endangered California Least Tern is locally common in places. The rare California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail can be found in marshes in the northern part of the zone. Marine mammals such as sea lions and harbor seals use the bays (San Francisco Bay in particular) as hauling grounds. Porpoises are common throughout the region. Also the gray whale calves in Seammons Lagoon and their migration to and from the lagoon draw thousands of people yearly to watch the spectacle. Many finfish of the zone rely on the estuaries for passage, breeding, nurseries, or feeding areas. Some of the most important are! striped bass, shad, northern anchovy, flounders, smelts, and Pacific herring. 30 There are a number of endangered or rare animals found in the Cali- fornia coastal zone, including the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, the Morno Bay Kangaroo rat, and the saltmarsh harvest mouse. The American Peregrine Falcon population, extinct as a breeding bird east of the Rockies, totaled only 10 birds in 1970. Pesticide contamination of the birds' food chain and human disturbance are cited as two contributing factors that have made its mortality rate exceed its recruitment rate. Shellfish important to man such as oysters, gapers, little neck clams, bay scallops, cockles, along with numerous species of crabs and shrimp, are found in California bays. In all, California's coastal zone boasts 108 species and subspecies of mammals, 260 species of birds, 54 species of reptiles and amphibians (12). Problems Major Concerns: landfill for development siltation domestic and industrial pollution Significant Concerns: electric power cooling water oil pollution Lesser Concerns: non-point source agricultural nutrient pollution (eutrophication) Since the turn of the century, the coast of California has been sub- jected to human pressures and changes. In 1900, there were 381,000 acres of tidal marshes and mud flats in California; now there are only 125,000 acres or a loss of 70 percent of these valuable coastal features. About 28 million acre feet of sewage is put into California's coastal zone yearly and is impacting some kelp beds in which sport fish reside, driving off these fish (13). California now has a generating capacity of 27,000 MWE, only 3.4 per- cent of which is nuclear. In 1990, an estimated 100,000 MWE will be needed of which 49 percent will be nuclear (13). This means that 49 million gallons of water per minute will be required for cooling these plants, and thermal pollution, along with the associated problems of impingement and entrainment, may affect the California coastal zone. Closed circuit cooling may mitigate against these problems but is likely to create other problems related to cooling water discharge. Oil pollution in California can be classed in two categories: off- shore spills that wash ashore and spills within harbors and estuaries. 31 The offshore spills are due to bilge pumping, accidents,'offshore loading, or from the oil platforms. The second category is caused by ships. bal- lasting, collision, or strandings, and pipeline ruptures. In San P edro Bay alone there were 443 merchant and 390 naval accidents between 1962 and 1969 which released 13,000 barrels of oil within this estuary CL3). The Sacramento, San Joaquin and Santa Anna rivers have the state's most persistent pollution problems because of non-point-source agricultural nutrient inputs (91). On Anacapa Island, there were 552 nestings of the Brown Pelican in 1970. Out of these, there was on -e offspring produced. This was due to persistent pesticides which resist degradation and cause the eggshells to be thin. When the parents try to hatch the eggs, their weight easily breaks them (14). Waterway development n /ot only disrupts habitats that are dredged, but also impacts adjacent habitats by siltation, altering water circulation, and spoils disposal. Southern California alone has lost 90 percent of its wet- lands and now has only 8,500 acres left (79). Most of California's present problems revolve around water-oriented housing developments and their assoc- iated filling, diking, and siltation. Also, road construction upstream from salmon spawning sites deposits sediments on the necessary gravel substrate impairing fertility. This same type of waterborne sedimentation decreases th"mount of light that reaches attached algae (kelp) in the near coastal zone causing deterioration of these environments (79)., Domestic and indus- trial pollution has so degenerated California's wetlands that in 1969 only 1800 pounds of clams were harvested statewide; none were harvested from San Francisco Bay for human consumption due to contamination as compared to 1892 when 2.6 million pounds were harvested in San Francisco Bay alone,(15). Columbia-North Pacific Region (17) DescriRtion The Washington coast has been much carved, eroded, and reduced to low coastal plains and islands by the weathering of sedimentary rock. The es- tuaries are greater in number, extend further inland, and are! more frequently enclosed by spits than those in the South Pacific zone. The estuaries of Puget Sound and the Columbia River are uniquely different, the Columbia for its quantity and force of outflow and Puget Sound for its complex channels and islands (84). A total of 13 pe-_:-cent of the 3,026 mile Washington shoreline is wide sandy beaches, two-thirds of which is located in Puget Sound and the Straits of. Juan de Fuca (61j). There are several large estuaries and an extensive fiord system with a combined estuarine area of about 194,000 acres. The 350 mile coastline of Oregon consists of 250 miles of usabi-e- beaches and the remaining 100 miles rocky headlands and cliffs. Approximately 43-percent of the Oregon ocean front has sand dune formations (61j). 32 The Oregon coastal region contains 14 major estuaries including the Columbia River estuary and a number of small estuaries with a combined area of approximately 58,000 acres (53). Major estuaries of this region are: Chetco River Trask River Rogue River Wilson River Coquille River Nehalem River Coos Bay Columbia River system Umpqua River Willipa Bay Smith River Grays Harbor Siuslaw River Quinault River Alsea River Strait of Juan de Fuca Yaquina River Puget Sound system Silez Creek The entire coast is characterized by the ever-changing cycle of erosion and deposition due to the fact that the tidal force is directed north-northeast almost parallel to the coast. Even with this geologic turmoil, the estuaries, bays, and marshes of the Columbia-North Pacific Region are a haven for many types of fish and wildlife. All five species of Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, and sea-run cutthroats use the estuary as a passageway from the oceans to their breeding rivers. Many other fish such as shad and herring need these estuaries as nursery grounds for spawning and rearing of young. Many types of wildlife are found in Oregon's estuaries. Salmon, perch, and flounder are among those species fished for in the bay. Com- mercial or recreationally important are oysters, soft shell clams, hard shell clams, and butter and geoduck clams. Crabs and shrimp are both abundant and harvested by fishermen. Tillamook Bay in Oregon is the major wintering area for Black Brant; and several species of ducks, geese, and shore birds use these Pacific Northwest estuaries extensively. Also, hard shell clams which are found in the more saline part of the estuary and soft shell clams which are found in the low salinity tide flats are an important commercial and recreation feature of these estuaries *(53,84,1.05). Great numbers of birds also have need of these North Pacific estuaries. The wintering waterfowl consist of Mallard, Wigeon, Pintail, Green-winged Teal, Goldeneye, Bufflehead, Scoter, Greater Scaup, Snow Goose, Canada Goose, and Black Brant. The nesting and breeding birds are Mallard, Wood Duck, Wigeon, Cinnamon Teal, and Blue-winged Teal. Heron rookeries are also common in this zone and habitat is provided for a great number of shore birds such as the Plover and Sandpiper. 33 Problems: Major Concerns: pulp mill wastes Significant Concerns: oil spills land development erosion due to reduced sediment transport filling and sedimentation. in Oregon estuaries. Lesser Concerns: electric power generation cooling water The Columbia-North Pacific Region is in the enviable position of being able to see what increased industrialization and population density with- out proper waste treatment can do to water quality while their water re- mains fairly clear; however, a number of areas in this region are already experiencing problems in their estuaries (52). Two-thirds of Washington's population live in the northwest and this region of t,he state is geared for urban, metropolitan, and industrial use. Change from existin g primary to secondary treatment plants is necessa ary just to maintain present water quality. The Columbia and Salmon rivers and Coquille Bay all have major domestic sewage problems. Requirements for electric power are expected to increase greatly in this region in the next 25 years. The anticipated 1975 electric generation of 11,441 GWH is expected to increase to 66,143 GWH by 1985 and. to 234,872 GWH by 2000, an increase of twenty-fold. Hydroelectric power will supply a part of this increase, but the majority will be steam-generated, requiring about 5,900 MGD of saline water for cooling in the coastal area by the year 2000 (18). The annual reports on oil spills to the Washin gton HOUSEt Committee on Ecology indicates an increase from 262 in 1970 to 983 in 1973, a rise of 275 percent. Also reported between 1970 and 1973 was an increase of fish kills of 25to 38, or 52 percent. Some of the increaSE! can probably be attributed to the surge of public environmentalists bE'ing more conscien- tious in reporting these incidences (91). Two recent studies, one by Minneapolis Honeywell, the other by the Sierra Club, predict 2.4-4 and 8 bulk cargo ship collisions per decade, respectively, making the possibility of oil spills a significant problem in the region (113). One of the major pollution problems in Washington is the effluent from the pulp mills in areas such as Bellingham Bay, Everett Harbor, Port Gardner, Port Angeles, Elliot Bay, and Grays Harbor. The BOD loads in some of these S, waters, especially at times of low water flow, lower dissolved oxygen levels below the 5 mg/l needed for salmon just to pass through these waters. The 34 Department of Fisheries believes that-during the fall the intermittent releases of wastes from Rennie.1sland above Grays Harbor cause an.avoidance reaction that drives the pre-spawning salmon back to the harbor and back to the fishing pressure present there (113). Industrial wastes greatly affect the viability of the Columbia River, Yaquina, Siuslaw and Umpqua bays, and also Coos Bay where effluent from pulp mills endanger the estuary. The average surface runoff in the Columbia-North Pacific Region is 278 million acre feet annually, 384,000 efs. Of this, 74,000 cfs. is inflow from Canada. Chemically the water in this region is suitable for domestic use. The dissolved solid content is usually less than 250 mg/l. Nitrates and phosphates originate from natural and man-made sources and agriculture and cause eutrophication in parts of the Yakima and Snake River basins and areas of the Columbia irrigation project (105). In Puget Sound the Committee on Ecology also shows concern over planned land development and recreational activities in the San Juan Island and Hood Canal areas (91). These projects will not only remove valuable estu- arine areas needed for waste assimilation but will put an added strain on the systems because of effluent input. In Oregon the major problems in the estuaries appear to be filling for road and land development or increased sedimentation. The drainage basin for the Tillamook Bay was extensively damaged by fires, thereby increasing sedimentation in the estuaries. Siletz Bay has the same increased sedi- mentation problem but is primarily due to bad land management in the water- shed. Nehalem, Netarts, Yaquina, Coos, Coquille and San Lake bays are all in danger due to filling for either land development or new roads (52). .0 There are four deep draft harbors in:the Pacific Northwest area; these are Coos, Yaquina, Willapa bays and Grays Harbor. This depth is maintained for fourteen, two, twenty, and twenty miles respectively. In the Columbia River, which is the second largest river system in the United States, deep draft facilities (40 feet deep and 600 feet wide) are maintained. This project will extend to Vancouver, Washington (106.5 miles) and was 57 percent complete as of June 1972. At the mouth of the Columbia a stabi- lized entrance channel is maintained 48 feet deep extending 2 miles sea- ward and 3 miles landward. Throughout the Columbia-North Pacific Region there are numerous flood control and channel maintenance projects by the Corps of Engineers; however extensive damage by erosion is showing up at different places along the coast due to the entrapment of sediments behind dams, or within estuaries that have been dredged, thereby increasing their trapping ability. The lack of deposition of these sediments to counterbalance erosion in some areas means damaging retrogression of the lands located here. oo 35 Alaska Region (19) Description The coastline of Alaska is 6,640 miles (10,680 km) long, 54 percent of the total United States coastline. Its coastal syst'ems arevery di- verse. Bristol Bay, the Yukon River delta, and the Seaward Peninsula have areas that are coastal plain; from Southeastern Alaska to,.the bight of the Gulf of Alaska the coast is glaciated and the Gulf of Alaska and western coast are resistant rock. The estuaries vary from glacier-fed fiords to large bays-such as Bristol Bay to many medium and small estuaries. The watersheds also.vary from temperate rain forest to the tundras and glacial terrain of the Arctic. The tide range also varies greatly, from 1 foot off the northslope to 30 feet at Anchorage at the head of Cooks Inlet, more change than any other region (5,84). Fiords and coasts eroded by past glaciershavean estimated 23,000 miles of shoreline or-68 percent of the total tidal shoreline:; wave pounded coasts constitute 19 percent; tide mixed estuaries 2 percent; ice affected coast (bordered by sea ice most winters) 8 percent; ice affected 14 coast (bordered by ice all winters) 3 percent (5). All reports are adamant in their praise of Alaska's wildlife. Great numbers of waterfowl such as Scoter, Eider, Oldsquaw, Qoldeneye, Emperor Goose, Trumpeter Swan, Wigeon,.-Mallard, Pintail, Bufflehead, Canada Goose, White-fronted Goose, Black Brant, the endangered Aleutim Canada Goose, and Whistling Swan feed in-Alaskan estuaries. In all, @219 species of birds occur in Alaska; Ill are water-related. The combination of the Kuskokwim delta and Yukon delta is one of the most important nesting areas in the North American continent. This area produces an -annual fall flight of 2.6 million ducks. Marine mammals that occur in Alaska's coastal areas are the harbor porpoise, stellar sea lions, northern fur seals, sea otters, walrus, hump- back whale, and beluge whale. The ribbon seal and humpback whale are en- dangered species. Presently there are an estimated 5,000 sea otters in Alaskan waters (84). Salmon, of course, are the major fish in the Alaskan estuaries. Also steelhead trout, flatfishes, herring, char, smelt, and.sablefish combine to make a list of commercially and recreationally important fish. No adequate data are presently available on different estuarine areas in Alaska; however, there are nine National Wildlife Refuges with a total of 226,500 acres and 1,770 shoreline miles. 36 Major estuaries include: Large reticulum of straits, sounds, and channels in Alexander Archipelago of South East Alaska Cooper River Kotzebue Sound Prince William Sound Bristol Bay Cook Inlet Silver Bay Yukon Delta area Chiniak Ray Kuskokwim Delta Wards Cove Norton Sound Problems Major Concerns: pulp mill wastes fish processing wastes Significant Concerns: municipal wastes potentially - oil spills and contamination Minor Concerns: timber leachates and bark Alaskan waters are pristine compared to the rest of the U.S., but pollution sources in Alaskan estuaries can be classed into five categories; timber industry, pulp and paper, petroleum, fishing, and municipal wastes. A fish kill was reported in Silver Bay due to pulp mill effluent, and Kodiak Harbor fish habitat has been degraded by fish processing plants (97). The disposal of untreated municipal wastes into the sea is common to coastal cities and villages, and adverse effects have been shown in embay- ments with restricted circulation. However, as the population of Alaska grows this practice will, of course, have major detrimental effects on water quality, and municipalities are now faced with the requirement of, secondary treatment before release (97). Along with population growth, energy needs will climb rapidly. In 1970, generating capacity was 351 MWE, 50 percent steam generation, 25 percent hydroelectric, and 25 percent diesel or gas turbine (7). The expected capacity in 1975 is 1083 MWE, of which about one-fourth will be fossil steam. Hydroelectric plants are expected to play the major role in increasing capacity to 27,510 MWE by the year 2000, with fossil steam re- maining at about 25 percent of total capacity. No nuclear plants are anticipated (18). 37 The petroleum industry does not significantly P011ILLte Alaskan.coastal systems at the present time though there have been repeated oi.1 spi-11s.in Cook.Inlet- However, when-the oil that will be piped from the north- slope to Port Valdez via the Trans-Alaskan pipeline has to be tankered out of Prince William Sound, oil pollution may attain significance. The disas- terous effects of oil pollution on wildlife and ecosystems are well- documented and stringent surveillance of the petroleum industry should be made to protect Prince William Sound, one of the largest estuarine areas in North America (97). In 1972 Alaska was fourth in tons of fish landed and processed, and wastes from these plants have already degraded water quality in areas. In Kodiak chitinous skeletons and entrails of crabs and shrimp have always been dumped into Chiniak Bay along side the processing plants. This has led to near bottom anoxia due to accumulated organics -and releases of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas (97). The timber industry is one of Alaska's most important, and will probably remain so. In 1970, 560 million board feet of timber, mostly hemlock, was harvested (97). Water areas are used for log handling and storage, and coastal pollution problems are already apparent in Southeast Alaska. Loss of bark affects the benthic community by measurably increasing the BOD. Leachates (especially from Douglas Fir) have acute toxicity to marine and freshwater fish (66). The pulp industry wastes at Wards Cove and Silver Bay have seriously degradated water quality because of inadequate treatment according to. the Federal Water Quality Administration in 1970 (97). Sulphate waste liquor concentrations, known to be at toxic levels to phytoplanktorl and salmon food organisms, have been found throughout both these areas. Summer coastal upwelling and the low oxygen waters involved.combined with the higher BOD due to waste liquor and solid discharges drive the dissolved oxygen below the-minimum (6 mg/L) allowed by the Alaska quality standards (97). Great Lakes Region (04) Description The Great Lakes Region comprises the five Great Lakes, Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, and their tributaries and the upper St. Lawrence. Together they constitute the largest body of fresh water in the world (84). The many bays, tributaries, and shoal areas of the lakes1unction as areas of high biological productivity in a manner anal- ogous to the function of estuaries at the interface of rivers and land with the ocean. The Great Lakes have insignificant astronomical tides, but have pro- nounced seiches and considerable wave action. They are rimmed with signif- icant lengths of high energy sand beach, marshland, and both erodable clay bluf f s and rather stable rocky bluf f s (see Table 1. 5).. 38 The Great Lakes f isher:Les have been considerably impacted by- man, but the region still supports a commercial fishing industry and a large sport fishery. Shoal waters characteristically support beds of submerged aquatic vegetation and where undisturbedI support the important fish. of the lakes, including lake trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, coho salmon, chinook salmon, kokanee salmon, yellow perch, white perch, northern pike, whitefish, alewives, smelt, lake herring, catfishes, bass, sunfish, burbot, walleye, and carp (24,25,26,27,28). The Region is extensively used by migratory waterfowl, fur-bearers, and large numbers of other wildlife (61d,82,83,84). Problems MAjor Concerns: water pollution shoreline erosion (Michigan) industrial discharges chlorine acids cyanide phenols oil heavy metals Significant Concerns: overfishing power production thermal addition radioactive lamprey destruction of marsh Lesser Concerns: dredging Municipal and industrial development and pollution, dredging and construction of navigation channels and harbors, electrical power plant discharges, overfishing, and introduction of exotic fish species have each had a marked impact on the Great Lakes fishery (24,25,26,27,28). Pesticides and organic pollution from municipal sources sometimes cause direct mortality and lower productivity from increased turbidity, coliform, count, and lowered dissolved oxygen. Electric power in the area is supplied by the operation of 365 gener- go ating stations primarily fossil fuel powered. Demand is expected to in-!-. crease at a compounded rate of 5.3 percent from 1970 to 2020. Nuclear power is expected to play a large role in meeting this demand, increasing the possible exposure to the environment by thermal and radioactive discharges (23). 39 Power plant cooling water may increase the overall metabolism of the normally cold water lakes, selecting for warm water species and eliminating the salmonids (43). Thermal additions contribute to fish kills, or decreased abundance, and also may affect an organism's behavior, migratiDn,-feeding, growth, and susceptibility to parasitism, predation, and ability to with- stand toxic effects (16). Chlorine and heavy metals may also be discharged from these'plants, further stressing the lakes. Entrainnent and impingement at intake canals is said to have substantial impacts on population levels. This may be a concern with endangered species (43). The Great Lakes support a large number of industries, especially along the Lakes Erie and Ontario shorelines. The country's largest iron and steel industries are located here, as well as pulp and paper mills, mining 14 operations, petroleum refining, chemical and food processing, and canning industries (109,110). These industries introduce large amounts of chlorine, acids, cyanides, phenols, oils, and heavy metals, especially mercury. Dis- charge of these effluents is often concentrated in harbors and shallow water areas, where fish population's are greatest, and where spawning sites are located (109,110). This has had massive impacts on fish and other organisms, with obvious repercussions for the commercial and sportfishing industries. Continued industrial and residential development threaten the area with increased organic pollution, heavy metals, and other industrial wastes. Taconite tailings and heavy metal wastes from steel production are big problems unlikely to be appreciably abated in the near future (109). A potential iron-manganese nodule resource exists in the lakes which would involve dredging and sedimentation if and when it is exploited (115). Completion of the Great Lakes canal and waterway sy-stem allowed intro- duction of destructive@fishes such as the sea lamprey and competitive fishes such as the smelt and alewife. Coupled with stresses caused by increased pollution and overfishing, the Great Lakes fishery rapidly declined in each lake, most noticeably in Erie and Ontario. Lake sturgeon became extinct or rare in all lakes before the turn of the century.. The open water fish- eries for lake trout, ciscoes, and whitefish declined or disappeared around 1940, leaving populations dominated by alewives and smelt. Blue pike and some species of burbot are extinct in some lakes and endangered or extinct in others. Re-stocking with Finger-lakes brook trout, splake (crosses be- tween brook and lake trout), rainbow trout, steelheads, land"locked Atlantic salmon, and koka.nee, chinook, and coho salmon is being carried out in at- tempts to restore some of the fishery (24,25,26,27,28). Extensive construction of erosion control structures, navigation channels, and harbors has already occurred, and a number of such projects are being studied for the future. In addition, maintenance dredging of existing harbors and channels will be periodically required (134). This results in increased turbidity, lowered dissolved oxygen, resuspension of nutrients and heavy metals through disturbance of sediments, disruption of benthic fauna and.flora, and altered circulation patterns. Consequently, 40 productivity is lowered, and the toxic effects of some pollutants may be increased. Dredge spoil from such operations formerly was deposited in productive marsh areas, causing loss or impairment of productive habitat (16,51,89,116). Residential, industrial,,,and agricultural development in previous years resulted in the loss of exten sLve acres.of marshland through filling and draining. Guidelines and policies of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service aud regulations of the Corps of Engineers have now eliminated these practices. HaTA*aii'Region (20) Description This island chain is characterized by small estuaries due mainly to the volcanic nature of the islands. The total area of these estuaries, approximately 50 in number, does not exceed 200 km2 Because of their small size, the ecological balance can be disrupted by relatively small amounts of toxic effluent. Also, since the Hawaiian watershed is compara- tively small and the tide range is around one meter, the estuaries flush rather slowly. Pearl Harbor has been shown to have a water residence time up to four days (103). Biological data are sparse for Hawaiian estuaries; however, a corre- lation can be drawn between the importance of Hawaiian estuaries and other estuaries of the United States. Commercially important fish and shellfish are the big-eyed scad, mackerel scad, goatfish, crevalle, Pacific threadfin, oysters, clams, spiny lobster, and octopus. Nesting waterfowl include the Hawaiian Duck, Hawaiian Stilt, Gallinule, and Coot, while the Pintail and Shoveler are important migrants. The Hawaiian Duck (Laysan Duck) is endangered. Birds such as the Pacific Golden Plover, Turnstone Sanderling, and Tattler feed in the estuarine zone. Important marine mammals are the Pacific bottlenose dolphin and the rare Hawaiian monk seal. More complete biological data should be generated within Hawaii's estuaries to monitor future changes in these systems. Major estuaries include: Hilo Bay Pearl Harbor Kaneohe Bay 41 Problem's MAj or C6riderns:! m stiz-waste treatment and drainage siltation Sikr!if icant Concerns: sugar cane processing wastes fish processing wastes Due to the relatively short estuaries and close proximity of the people to the ocean, most water quality problems are marine, although es- tuarine water quality is affected mostly by sewage effluent, sugair cane processing wastes, and fish processing wastes, along with siltation from housing developments and highway construction. Two coral kills were re- Ported. One was due to sewage in Kaneohe Bay, and the other involved eight acres of coral and was due to thermal effluent from the Kahe power plants on Oahu. Pesticide and oil pollution are both insignificant, but one molasses spill is reported with no reported ecological effects (29). Future problems appear to revolve around manganese ore processing. There is a possibility of a plant being built in Hawaii using hydrogen chloride leaching, but pilot plants show no water quality degradation associated with the project. Caribbean ReSion (21) Description The Caribbean Region includes the island of Puerto Rico and.the Virgin Islands. The coastline of the island of Puerto Rico is characterized by naturally stressed, low diversity ecosystems, almost evenly divided between rocky cliffs and high energy sand beaches (60). The coastline is indented with coves and small embayments, comprising the bay and estuarine portions of the Puerto Rican shoreline (84). The bay and estuarine shoreline con- tains some sand beach also, but is dominated primarily by highly productive salt marshes and mangrove swamps. Productive coral reefs and rock islets extend offshore of many bays and much of the coastline (61f). The Virgin Islands consist of more than 40 islands and cays. The coastline is dominated by rocky bluffs with relatively little high energy sand beach comprising the remainder. The bay and estuarine shoreline is dominated by salt marsh and mangrove swamp with some sand beach. Many productive coral reefs extend offshore and into the bays and lagoons (61f,84). IThe productivity of many tropical ecosystems is high due to their high ambient temperatures and relative stability (60). In general, perturbations in any of the tropical systems are likely to decrease their biological productivity. 42 Major embayments include: Bahia Sucia Coral Bay Phosphorescent Bay Caneel Bay Bahia de Guinica Krause Lagoon Bahia de Rinco'n Limetree Bay Bahia de Jobos Manchenil Bay Laguna San Jos6 Halfpenny Bay San Juan Harbor Great Pond Bay Bahia de Boquer6n Tague Bay St. Thomas Harbor Altona Lagoon Magens Bay Salt River Bay Brewers Bay Problems Major Concerns: waste treatment Significant Concerns: sedimentation dredging Input of wastes from rivers is derived from over-loaded treatment plants and point discharge sources upriver. This has increased sedimen- tation, BOD, and coliform counts (107). Sedimentation endangers habitats such as marshes, mangrove swamps, and coral reefs, and organisms such as sessile or slowly-mobile shellfish. High bacterial levels make shellfish unsafe for human consumption, and lowered dissolved oxygen decreases over- all biological productivity and may result in fish kills. Sewage pollution resulting in.high bacterial levels in excess of federal water quality standards is occurring in the vicinity of San Juan Harbor. Residential development along the coastline of both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is expected to increase in the near future and may add to or initiate the same problem in other areas (84). These residences may require the construction of erosion protection structures with their associated problems. Nuclear power plants are in operation in the islands, but the only thermal loading problems at present are caused by industrial operations in St. Croix, Virgin Islands (107). Tbereare no immediate plans for additional 43 nuclear reactors at present, but industrial development iEL e.@.:pected to in- crease somewhat and may add to the thermal loading problem (84). Air pollution by ethylene from refining operations has been implicated in artificial ripening of mangrove seedlings, reducing their viability. This could reduce the area of growth rate of productivemangrove swamps (88). Sedimentation is pronounced.in many areas of Puerto Rico due to input from rivers. Point discharges of pollutants are a problem ill both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,, in some cases causing buildup of pesticides and heavy metals at the mouths-of rivers (84,90,107). Dredging operations for boat channels and port facilities increase the turbidity of the water, decreasing the productivity of the plankton commu- nity, and increasing siltation destructive to marshlands, mangrove swamps, and coral reefs. Deposition of spoil from such operations also threatens these habitats (16). The Corps of Engineers has been'charged with maintaining channels in various harbors in the islands. Maintenance dredging will be periodically required for port operation. The increased recreational use of the islands may cause demands for recreational marinas requiring dredging of boat channels and onshore construction of recreational facilities with subsequent habitat destruction or alteration (84). Residential development of the coastline may necessitate constr@ction of artificial erosion control structures such as seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, groins, breakwaters, jetties, and beach fills (84j. The construction, maintenance, and function of these structures involves alter- ations of circulation patterns, disruption of bottom sediments, increased turbidity and siltation, and loss of habitat (16,59). These alterations are likely to affect the abundance and diversity of organisms present. Residentialdevelopment may also be a source of organic sewage pollution of nearby estuaries if adequate treatment facilities are not provided. SHORELINE TYPE The length of each shoreline type for the WRC regions is summarized in Table 1.5. The classified beaches are described differently in dif- ferent regions, but are generally rocky or gravel beaches sometimes mixed with sand. 44 Table 5. Length of Shoreline Types for IMC Regions. Estuarine Gravel or Sandy Unclassified Marsh or Unconsolidated Rocky Shoreline] Coastlinel Surface Area Rocky Beach4 Beach Beaches Mangrove Clif!s Shore4 Region State mi. km. i. k.. acres km2 i. k.. i. km. i. k.. mi. k.. i. km. '.i. lan. New England Maine 2,500 4,011.5 228 366.9 39,400 159.4 50 80.5 10 16.1 2,440 3,926.0 New Hampshire 40 64.4 13 20.9 12,400 50.2 25 40.2 Massachusetts 1,200 1,930.8 192 308.9 207,000 837.7 305 490.7 635 1,021.7 Rhode Island 340 547.1 40 64.4 94,700 383@2 45 72.4 140 225.3 Connecticut 270 434.4 31,600 127.9 145 233.3 Total 4,350 6,999.2 385,100 1,558.4 955 1,536.6 Middle New York 638 1,026.5 127 204.3 376,600 1,524.1 331 532.6 Atlantic New Jersey 469 754.6 130 209.2 778,400 3,150.2 215 345.9 205 329.8 Delaware 226 363.6 38 45.1 395,500 1,600.6 76 122.3 100 160.7 Maryland 1,939 3,119.9 31 49.8 1,406,100 5,690.5 46 74.0 Virginia 993 1,597.7 112 180.2 1,670,000 6,768.5 294 473.0 530 852.8 Total 4,265 6,862.3 4_38_ T8-8.6 4,626,600 18,733.4 South North Carolina 3,661 5,890.5 301 484.3 2,206,600 8,930.1 1,269 2,041.8 1,503 2,418.3 Atlantic- South Carolina 3,063 4,928.4 187 300.9 427,900 1,731.7 196 315.4 Gulf Georgia 204 328.9 100 160.9 170,800 691.2 102 163.6 Florida 8,426 13,557.4 1,350 2,172.2 1,051,200 4,254.0 Mississippi 359 577.6 44 70.8 251,200 1,016.6 1,375 2,212.43 2,423 3,898.63 Alabama 607 - 976.6 - 53 _3: 85.3 530,000 2,144.8 Total 176,326 i6,239.4 2,0_35 27-4.4 4_,637,7 18,768.4 Lower Louisiana 7,721 12,423.1 397 638.8 3,545,100 14,346.3 835 1,343.5 1,108 1,782.8 Mississippi Texas-Gulf Texas 1,792 2,883.3 373 600.3 1,344,000 5,438.9 674 1,084.5 359 577.6 421 677.4 4- California- So. Pacific California 3,427 5,514.0 840 1,351.6 552,100 2,234.2 17.5 28.5 622 1,065.6 202 325.8 757.0 1,218.0 Columbia- Washington 3,026 4,868.8 157 252.6 193,800 784.3 No. Pacific Oregon 1,410 2,268.7 296 476.3 57,600 233.1 Total 4,436 7,137.5 - 72-- @53 8.9 251,400 1,017.4 Alaska Alaska 33,904 54,551.5 6,640 10,683.8 11,022,800 44,607.1 Great Lakes Wisconsin 9,571 15,399.7 10,600 42.9 2,107 416.4 Michigan 151,700 613.9 Ohio 37,200 150.5 New York 48,900 197.9 Total 9,571 15,399.7 Hawaii Hawaiian Is. 1,052 1,692.7 750 1,206.7 Caribbean Virgin Is. 175 281.6 117 188.2 Puerto Rico 700 1,126.3 311 500.4 - - Total - 428 69B.6 259 3,390.6 -675 1.407.9 IData fro. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA pamphlet, The Coastline of the United States. 2Data, National Estuary Study, Volume 5, U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1970. 31ncludes Gulf Coasts of Florida, Mississippi and Alabama. 4Source Material not sufficiently explicit to classify. Most beaches in these categories as probably Shelly, pebbly, or gravel or mixtures. BIOLOGICAL AREAS Information is less generally available on the quantity of' biological areas except in certain states where such surveys have been tabulated. There is practically no available quantitative information on areas of clam bottoms, scallops, crabs, shrimp, lobster, anadramous fish spawning areas, and nursery areas by species though these are indicated on maps and charts for some states. Reported information is shown in Table 1.6, but blank spaces do not infer a lack of the resource, OULly a lack of data. The shortage of available information for oysters and clanis, as well as other biological areas, is especially great for the west coast, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean. Several states are in the process of inven- torying intertidal areas and wetlands, but these are incomplete as yet. An example of such an inventory is shown in Table 1.7 for Virginia. Some states have also mapped areas of special significance such as that shown in Figure 1.2, showing spawning grounds of herring in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Table 1.7. Classification of the Tidal Wetlands of Virginia. Wooded Open Wood- Tidal Dredged Temp Area Marsh Marsh Creeks land Flats Sand Ponds Areas Lakes Total Potomac River 1,790 8,835 6,601 1,123 659 19,008 Rappahannock River 6,689 15,496 10,785 100 722 96 924 11 34,823 York River System 3,083 23,482 5,939 1,134 3,131 169 1,418 38,856 James River 17,676 18,164 7,604 763 3,784 40 638 70 48,739 Eastern Shore Seaside 150 66,435 3,698 66 66,560 4,177 276 389 141,751 Eastern Shore Bayside 139 17,706 12,681 440 9 151 31,126 Chesapeake Bay West Shore' 8,681 14,210 12,013 503 3,657 1,524 397 22 41,007 Other 15,080 12,745 1,597 62 1,622 132 374 31,612 Southeast Virginia 6,840 6,840 Totals 60,128 177,073 60,918 2,628 79,417 7,637 4,595 103 763 393,262 Source: Coastal Wetlands of Virginia, by M. L. Wass, T. D. Wright (1969). SRAMSOE No. 10, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. ENDANGERED SPECIES The following list gives the endangered fauna for the United States that resides or spends an important part of the life cycle within the estuarine or nearshore marine environment (Table 1.8). The common and scientific names and general location are given. This information is intended to identify endangered species with respective areas that presently receive or are likely to receive significant environmental ,stress in the near future. In some cases, the endangered fauna receive consideration for listing mainly because of exploitation such as the whales and the alligator. 46 Table 1.6. Habitat Areas for WRC Regions. Warm Coastal Cham Areas 0 Pltmarsh ater RarS2 r-e .2 Region State -U. O@@ Sh .1 -ter la-Flats,. a Salt Ponds2 C,.,__ 1,2 -2 M2 -a New England Maine 39,400 159.4 59,460 240.6 28,882 116.9 17,633 71.4 New Hampshire 12,400 50.2 3,900 15.8 12,860 52.0 5,910 23.9 5,675 22.9 Massachusetts 207,000 837.7 382 1.5 28,000 113.3 44,695 180.9 42,460 171.8 1,292 5.2 Rhode Island 94,700 383.2 6,845 27.7 50,933 206.1 2,050 8.3 2,005 8.1 ND ND Connecticut 31,600 127.9 71,414 289.0 11,544 46.7 8,986 -36.4 ND NO Total 385,100 1,558. 4 222,667 @01.0 T3,081 T76.7 76,759 T10- 6 Middle New York 376,600 1,524.1 6,000 24.3 32,395 131.1 26,759 147.1 NO ND Atlantic Ne. Jersey 778,400 3,150.1 215,760 873.2 60,000 242,8 301,000 1,218.1 Delaware 395,500 1,600.5 109,448 442.9 20,000 80.9 15,000 60.7 Maryland 1,406,100 5,690.3 183,860 744.1 326,000 1,319.3 250,000 1,011.7 Virginia 1,670,000 6,758.3 197,250 798.2 384,000 1,554.0. 300,000 1,214.1 Total 4,626,600 18,723.3 738,713 2,989.5 South N. Carolina 2,206,600 8,929.9 191,650 775.6 200,000 809.4 100,000 404.7 Atlantic S. Carolina 100,000 404.7 514,400 2,081.8 20,000 80.9 2,000 8.1 Georgia 170,800 691.2 390,150 1,578.9 15,000 6.1 Florida NO Mississippi NO Alabama ND Lower Louisiana ND 583,971 2,363.3 Mississippi Texas-Gulf Texas 488,128 1,975.4 California- California ND 56,205 227.4 48,477 196.2 So. Pacific Columbia- Washington ND No. Pacific Oregon ND Alaska Alaska NO Great Lakes Wisconsin ND Michigan NO Ohio ND New York ND Hawaii Hawaiian Is. ND Caribbean Virgin Is. ND 390 00 y OF POTOIVIA RIVER 380 ov ov MATTAPON1 - W-MO.R I V E R NOCK CHESAPEAKE SAY RIVER PAMU YORK RIVE JAM IVER 370 ATLANTIC 00, OCEAN 77'000' 7 6 0 00' Figure 1.2. Spawning grounds of herring in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Source: Coastal Wetlands of Virginia, by M. L. Wass, T. D. Wright (1969). SRAM130E No. 10, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 48 It is clear that the list is relatively short which may reflect that most endangered species are presently associated with habitats other than the estuarine and nearshore environment; however, the list is continuously updated and more forms likely will be added in the future. Some species are not year-round residents of the estuarine and near- shore marine area. Most whales are probably only infrequent visitors to this area, except the gray whale, which makes along-shore breeding migrations on the west coast. Table 1.8. Endangered Species of the Estuarine and Nklarshore Marine Environment. Common Name Scientific Name Where Found Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum USA/Canada: Atlantic Coast Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Tropical seas worldwide Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Tropical and temperate seas wo rldwide Alligator, American Alligator mississipiensis USA/Southeast Albatross, Short-tailed Diomedea albatrus USA (Aleutian Islands) Petrel, Hawaiian Dark-rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis Hawaii Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis USA (Southeast) Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis californicus USA (West) Duck, Laysan Anas laysanensis Hawaii Goose, Aleutian Canada Branta canadensis USA Eagle, Southern Bald Haliae,etus leucoceptialus leucocephalus USA (South of 40thParallel) Falcon, American Peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum USA Falcon, Arctic Peregrinc Falco peregrinus _@undrius USA Crane, Whooping iErus americana USA Rail, California Clappei Rallus longirostris obsoletus California Rail, Light-footed Clapper Rallus longirostris levipes California Tern, California Least Sterna albifrons browni USA Sparrow, Cape Sable Ammospi.a maritima mirabilis Florida Sparrow, Dusky Seaside Ammosp za maritima nigrescens Florida Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay Dipodomys heermanni morreensis USA (California) Mouse, Salt marsh harvest Reithrdontomys raviventris USA (California) Whale, Blue Balaonoptera musculus Oceanic Whale, Bowhead Balaena mysticetus Oceanic Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Oceanic Whale, Gray Escbrichtius gibbosus Oceanic Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Oceanic Whale, Right Eubalaena spp. (all species) Oceanic Whale, Sei Balaenoptera borealis Oceanic Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon Oceanic Wolf, Red Canis rufus USA (Texass Louisiana) Manatee, West Tndian (Fla.) Trichechus manatus Caribbean/Adjacent Atlantic Coastal Source: List provided by Biological Service, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Departmvnt of the Interior, Washington, D. C. .*4 .4 49 CHAPTER 2 THE STATUS OF ESTUARIES AND ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT IN THE LEGAL-INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM P. A. Dales,.III, M. T. Jacks, J. H. Klein INTRODUCTION Estuaries as biological entities know no political boundaries, yet they suffer management problems in terms of the activities of' the politi- cal subdivisions encompassing them. Presently, there is no single locus within the legal system for their management, and, with the EMception of the EstuarineAreas Act and administrative policies on wetlands, most regulation and coordination programs have only incidental application to estuarine zones (93). The main purpose of-most legislation is to protect a natural resource value incidental to or comprising only a contrib 'uting part of an estuary as a dynamic system. The Fish and Wildlife Coordina- tion Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act exemplify such an approach to the management of estuarirkE@ resources. THE STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP The estuary is a geographic-hydrologic entity laboring within the legal system as the tangential beneficiary of some legislation and com- ,prehensive planning. At present, beyond some benevolent Federal policy statements, estuaries and their welfare are the province of the States. This, of course, is a corollary of a desire to maintain a federalist system of government. In the estuarine zone, the philosophy that indi- viduals and local interests should be assured freedom of cho!'ce and freedom from central control is tested against a highly vulnerable and highly valuable array of public resources. Responsibility irk this zone is definitely but indistinctly divided between Federal and State sovereignties (84, Vol. I). The estuary is a zone of land-water interaction. At the water's edge, a mixture of public and private ownership exists, and Local, State, and Federal jurisdictions are superimposed. Submerged lands are, in most cases, State-owned, overlaid with the Federal navigational servitude. Estuarine management encompasses a wide spectrum of control ranging from local planning and zoning to clear Federal regulation. It is because of this framework that most Federal legislation affecting EtStuarine areas has a single thrust-to encourage States to develop balancEtd management processes for their estuaries and to require Federal agencies conducting activities in these areas to consider State policies rE!lative to the management of estuarine resources (93). 50 A prime example of such Federal legislation is the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972, perhaps the single most important tool in the realm of effective estuarine management. This law authorized the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to coastal states to assist in planning for and administering sound management programs for the coastal zone. Its basic approach is that decision making on the use of the coastal zone, which by definition encompasses the estuarine zone, is primarily a State prerogative subject to Federal jurisdiction in such areas of overriding national con- cern as water quality standards and energy production. In addition to addressing the broad concept of coastal zone management, the act also specifically recognizes the importance of estuaries by providing for the establishment of estuarine sanctuaries. Thus, while many Federal statutes contain planning and coordination mandates, the Coastal Zone Management Act represents a major piece of Federal legislation providing for and encouraging specific State management responsibilities in estuarine areas. There can be no doubt that, under the Constitution, the Federal govern- ment and the individual States share concurrent jurisdiction over coastal waters; but since State interests are subject to divestiture, Federal and State interests are not co-equal (49). The Commerce Clause, which grants the Federal government the authority to control navigable waters in the interest of commercel, and national security interests are examples of grounds on which divestiture can be justified. In addition, large areas of the coast have been developed and are administered by Federal agencies. Even excluding military areas, there are forty areas operated by the National Park Service and ninety-one areas maintained by the National Wildlife Refuge System (39). As the public need changes, so does the law regarding use of public and private property. The law must meet the demands of society-demands in relation to estuaries which may become more readily perceived in the future. Estuaries lie across the imaginary boundary between proper exercise of Federal regulatory power under the Commerce Clause and the power of the States as the principal inheritors of sovereignty to protect the public health, safety, and welfare through the exercise of their police powers.. Beginning with fisheries regulation and continuing through the Submerged Lands Act, acts concerning water quality control, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, Congress has indicated that it considers it to be in the public interest for the States to manage and conserve their own natural resources. Although Congress has had to provide incentives for State action, the States, being the repositories of the police power2, have a more direct capability to shape the development of estuarine areas than does the Federal government. As a result of these factors, Federal ini- tiatives have been aimed at strengthening State and regional capabilities in the area of estuarine management and making the Federal bureaucracy responsive to environmental issues. An observation made five years ago in the National Estuary Study is still applicable today and that is, for reasor@__s_tbat are viewed as legiti-- mate by residents, local jurisdictions will not, perhaps cannot, commit lArt. 1, �8, U.S. onstitution. 2Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution. 51 substantial land and water resources to the production of values realized by society at'large. Additionally, there is no reason.to assume that a mosaic of State'development plans would correspond to a plan which would best serve even regional interests., Many States now have super-agencies handling conservation and development of natural resources with regulatory structures superimposed over local planning and zoning structures. Considering the multifaceted format@of management, a major problem seems,to be the inadequate procedure for reviewing major Federal projects. There is no arbiter to resolve differences arising between various agencies and there are no executive guidelines for actually reviewing major pro- jects (96). As a result, through negotiation, an interagency agreement on@ a project is reached, but this is often an exercise in finding middle ground which may or 'may not represent the public interest, since each agency:must consider its own constituency which does not necessarily repre- sent the public at large (96). There is simply no controlling statement to be made concerning the balance which must be achieved between conserva" tion and development of renewable and nonrenewable resources and their relative priorities. This is an important factor considering, that each Federal agency operates under laws developed by particular Congressional committees'to7serve specified needs, and private groups representing special interests often influence agency and Congressional action (84). Policy and-practice are not necessarily parallel. The State level of involvement needs to be strengthened, and a clear forum for',c:oordinating specific estuarine-related management functions of different agencies needs to be provided. Although Federal funding has definitely strengthened State estuarine-related management programs, particularly with regard'to planning for pollution abatement, fisheries management, resource identification, comprehensive planning, and land acquisition, problems still exist. Due to the great number of agencies, ittees and coordinating groups dealing with activities ELffecting commi 2 estuaries, effective coordination and-management is difficult. State coastal zone management initiative is competing with the more established agencies'and policies such as the Department of Interior, energy related programs outer continental shelf development, and deep water port development.' Estuaries are transpolitical entities; accordingly, the interstate- regional components of planning should be given more than "required con-. siderafton'@ status in State or Federal planning activities, In fact,, the ippropriateness of an interstate compact can stem from either the fact that an estuary lies in two states or that a river rises in an inland portion of one@ state and flows through*one or more other states before reaching:the'�ea.. It would appear necessary in either case to control communities on either side of a state line by a legal entity which can operate on behalf of the public bodies which normally function under the laws of a single state.(84). There is no single locus in the system re@ sponsible for estuarine management, and unless there if; a pre-emptive national policy, as in the case of navigation or water quality, the States! 52 W perception of estuarine management must prevail. Of course, the State perception of management is shaped by pressures on a project-by-project basis (93). Each major Federal project must be preceded by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the agency required by law to advance the project is also responsible for the preparation of the EIS and must respond to pressures for development and protection-a sometimes untenable internal conflict, particularly without guidelines for interagency resolution of conflicts. Should an agency be the arbiter in its own case? Because of the duties incumbent upon various agencies to advance and protect their own specific interests, interagency conflicts will necessarily arise and, at present, there exists no forum ML for resolving such differences of opinion. The solution should be neither political nor single project oriented (96), as it now appears to be. COMPONENTS OF ESTUARINE IMPACT The majority of the impacts of human activities on estuaries may be divided into four, often interrelated components: a land use and develop- ment component, a water quality and water quantity component, a marine transportation component, and a fisheries management component. Each may support Federal regulation over estuary-related activities, but at present the states also exercise various degrees of competence in these areas. It should be remembered, of course, that Federal activity in a particular field does not necessarily preempt arallel State legislation. Florida's Oil Pollution Liability legislation , upheld in Askew v. American Water- ways Operators, Inc., is an example of this phenomenon2. Activities affecting marshes, wetlands, and estuaries are being moni- tored closely by Federal agencies. These areas are all associated with bodies of water that are considered navigable and., as such, could support Federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause of the Constitu- tion. A multitude of conditions may affect commerce; therefore, this constitutional power affords a considerable legal base. To the extent that estuaries are used as ports for commerce or otherwise in connection with navigation, Federal law may be made directly applicable. In addition to the Commerce Clause, there is the admiralty jurisdiction clause3, the war grants clause4 which establishes justification for in- volvement of the Army in supervision5over all improvements made in navigable waters, the property power for management of Federal property, and the treaty power which makes international arrangements affecting estuaries the law of the land6. It must be remembered, however, that 'Fla. Stat. Ann. � 376.02 (1974). 2411 U. S. 325 (1973). 3Art. 3, 2, U. S. Constitution. 4Art. 1 8, U. S. Constitution. 51bid. 6-Art. 6, U. S. Constitution. 53 what is theoretically possible may not be politically feasible. The States,as the principal inheritors of the rights of sovereignty and the repositories of the police power under the Tenth Amendment, are enabled to act on behalf of the States in matters pertaining to health, safety, and-the general welfareas long as such power has not been specifically delegated to the Federal government. recognition of this Constitutional arrangement and the power under the Commerce Clause, Congress has granted much authority to executive agencies to deal with specific resource management activities. Executive orders,' guidelines developed in connection with administration of particu- lar statutes, and regulations implementing and elaborating acts of Con- gress p.rovide-the remainder of the Federal legal setting for handling estuarine problems. Federal policy more directly affecting estuaries may be found in the" National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Estuarine Areas Act, the Water Resources Planning Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordi- nation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Each affects a dif- ferent aspect of estuarine activity. NEPA directs that, to the. greatest extent possible, the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered to reflect the purposes of the act., in@surlng that environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in the Federal decision making process. It follows that any Environmental Impact Statement required by a Federal activity as well as any lesser Federal activity such as permitting procedures are required to consider the policy of the Estuarine Areas Act to protect, conserve, and restore the nation's estuaries in a manner that will maintain a-balance between national needs for protection of. suchfidtural. resources and the need to develop these estuaries to further the growth and development of the nation. In addition, the Water,Resources Planning Act is designed to encourage the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources on a comprehensive and coordinated basis. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Congression- al'policy is to preserve, protect, develop, restore, or enhance the nation's coastal zone resources, of which estuaries are a large part.. Both the Estuarine Areas Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act speak of the responsibility of the States to protect, conserve, and restore the estuaries. Consequently, the importance given to estuarine resources in coastal planning processes is essentially a State value judgment and, unless there is a pre-emptive national policy '- as in the case of water pollution, the States' perception of estuarine management: must prevail (93). Virtually all coastal States are presently involved in developing coastal zone management programs under Federal guidelines, and after im- plementation of the State programs, the Federal government must generally conduct its programs and activities in accordance with the approved State management programs. The recently passed Deep Water Pori: Act, providing for adjacent State approval of deep water port development, signifies * continued Congressional recognition of the importance of State involvement. In terms of the land use and development component of estuarine manage- ment, the Coastal Zone Management Act is the only Federally-approved land use program. (Note: Section 702 of the Housing Act provides for 54 comprehensive planning grants wbich undoubtedly include cities situated on or near estuaries, but land uses under the Coastal Zone Management Act are limited to those having a direct and significant impact on coastal waters.) This law provides the opportunity for the States to become a major coordinating body if they satisfy Federally required elements of planning and balancing environmental protection and economic development. Nothing in the Act, however, requires that a completely coordinated system be developed. No other jurisdictional responsibility of Federal or State agencies is diminished and no other coordinating requirements are superceded. Should serious disagreement occur between a Federal agency and a State, the issue is to be mediated in cooperation with the Executive office of the President. Land use above mean high water remains basically within the purview of the States and is determined within the framework of State law by the interaction of private interests and local govern- mental policies. The water quality component of estuarine management includes significant Federal agency activity. Rivers carry large loads of pollutants into estuaries and, since estuaries often have poor flushing characteristics, information regarding pollution loads and carrying capacities is of significant value in estuarine management. The Environmental Protection Agency is the primary Federal agency re- sponsible for water pollution control. The 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) mandate that Federal standards be developed for all discharges and effluents. The several States may implement these standards. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System envisioned under this Act is presently being im- plemented on a state by state basis. The Act, by providing f or definitive standards and goals encompassing all of the Nation's navigable waters, covers all point sources of effluent discharge and all vessel discharges except oil (42), which is covered by the Oil Pollution Act. Currently, regulations promulgated under this law by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, including the various permit procedures under the FWPCA and the Rivers and Harbors Act, extend Federal water quality standards into wetlands areas; consequently, any Federal or State permits for alterations in wetlands areas must now be evaluated in terms of their effect on water quality, a pro- cedure which has withstood judicial challengel. Finally, under the FWPCA, a continuing study of estuarine areas is mandated. There are several difficulties in the present arrangement. First, the States themselves may become the lead permitting agencies under the FWPCA program, and secondly, certifications of water quality con- formity must be coordinated between State agencies, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of Engineers. The priority of this requirement among the many duties of each agency is not necessarily high. Third, the problems of siltation and erosion are spread among at least three Federal agencies: the Soil Conservation Service of the Department IU.S. v. Holland, 373 F. Supp. 665 (M.D. Fla. 1974). 55 ,of Agriculture, the Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department Of Interior. Heavy and rapid rates of urbanization and highway, commercial and industrial contruction, coupled with monitoring and control difficulties, have increased the flow of sediment from rivers into their estuaries. Complementary laws like the Oil Pollution Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Environmental Pesticide Control Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping Act) provide vehicles for protection of the nation's estuaries against pollution by maritime traffic, pesticides, and ocean dumping. Turning to the water quantity'aspect of this component of estuarine resource management, the Water Resources Council, under the authority of the Water Resources.Planning Act, directs and coordinates the Federal- State comprehensive planning for the use and development of the water and related land resources of the nation's river basins. Planning under WRC guidance specifically encompasses estuaries and estuarine related resources. The WRC has divided the United'States and its territories into twenty-one Water Resource Regions, eleven of which contain estuaries: New England, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic-Gulf, Lower Mississippi, Texas-Gulf, California-South Pacific, Columbia-North Pacific, Alaska, LIF Great Lakes, Hawaii, and the Caribbean. Regional and interstate arrangements are an important aspect of estuarine resource management. Of importance to the New England Region is the New Engl and River Basin Commission, an Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, a Regional Commission under the Public Works and Economic Development Act, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission which embraces all the states of the Atlantic Seaboard. In the Middle Atlantic Region, New York alone participates in an interstate port authority, an interstate transportation agency, and an interstate park commission in addition to its own regional water pollution control agency, a metropolitan regional council, and a waterfront commission. Elsewhere in the Middle Atlantic Region there is the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Port Authority, the Lower Delaware River and Bay Authority, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the Potomac River Basin.Commission. The Coastal Plains Regional Commission, established under the authority of the Public Works and Economic Develop- ment Act, operates in the South Atlantic-Gulf Region. In the Great Lakes Region, there is the Great Lakes River Basin Commission, the Great Lakes Basin Commission under the Public Works and Econontic Development Act, an International Joint Commission, and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. The Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission operates irL the Columbia- North Pacific,and the Pacific-Southwest and the Southeast Basin.Interagency Committees operate in the California-South Pacific and South Atlantic-Gulk regions, respectively (101). The above list exemplifies the wide breadth of interests in activ- ities having an effect on estuarine management and the resulting diffi- culty in coordinating the activities of functioning bodies within these areas. 56 Under the Water Resources Planning Act, the WRC is primarily riverine and water quantity oriented; that is, it is concerned with determining the adequacy of supplies of water to meet the requirements of the nation (84, Vol. 6). The River Basin Commissions established under its authority, however, do comprehensive planning and conduct research activities directly related to estuarine protection. The River Basin Commissions' plans are reviewed by the Council with special regard to the efficacy of such planning in achieving optimal use of water and land resources in the given area and the effect of the plan on the achievement of other nation-wide programs for the development of agriculture, energy, industry, recreation, fish and wildlife, and other resources. The Water Resources Council, serving as the principal agency for the coordination of.Federal, interstate, State, local, and non-governmental plans for development of water and related land resources, has promulgated regulations with principles and standards for water and related land re- sources in order to guide other Federal agencies in determining whether a project is in the public interest'. These regulations require a balanced consideration of all relevant public objectives, including those of environ- mental quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife, in all comprehensive planning which the Council coordinates. The Water Resources Council and its Commissions enjoy authority to plan in estuarine areas. The official position of the Council is that the Ifuse, preservation or development and management of coastal, lake, and river shorelines, islands and estuaries are to be given full consideration in the planning of water and related resources" (84). There are presently six river basin commissions, three of which include estuarine areas. These are the Pacific-Northwest, the Great Lakes, and the New England River Basin Commissions. Two WRC interagency committees function in the Pacific South- west and Southeast Basins, but the New Jersey coast, the lower Chesapeake Bay, and the Texas-Louisiana coast have no regional planning authorities operating in those areas. The Commissions are instructed to prepare and keep up-to-date comprehensive and coordinated joint plans for Federal, inter- state, State, local and non-governmental development of water related re- sources, which must include an evaluation of all reasonable alternative means of achieving optimum development of water and related land resources of the basin or basins. The New England River Basin Commission has conducted extensive research with respect to estuarine and coastal pollution problems through coordination of research and educational activities, although it has no specific management role. The same is true of the Pacific-Northwest Commission and the Great Lakes Commission. The other interstate groups are of an advisory and coordinating nature and influence management of estuaries only through persuasion (101). An example is the Coastal Plains Regional Commission in the South Atlantic-Gulf Region which contributes to estuarine management primarily by supporting research.activities. The authority and responsibility of the Water Resources Council are set forth in Table 2. 1. 138 Fed. Reg. 24778 (1973) 57 Table.2.1. Provisions of the Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1972 (1970)). Water Resources Planning Act Title I Establishes Water Resources Council and sets forth Council respan- sibilities. Title 11 Authorizes the establishment of River Basin Commissions through the Water Resources Council. Title III Provides financial assistance to states to increase their partici- pation in coordinated planning for the nation's water and related land resources. Water Resources Council Members: Secretary of the Interior Secretary of Agriculture Secretary of the Army Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Secretary of Transportation Chairman, Federal Power Commission Associate Members: Secretary of Commerce Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency Observers: Director, Office of Management and Budget Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality Attorney General Chairmen, River Basin Commissions Administrator, Tennessee Valley Authority Chairmen, Water Resources Council Interagency Committees Water Resources Council Responsibilities 1. Assess adequacy of water supplies in each water resource region of the United States. 2. Maintain a continuing study of the relation of regional and river basin plans to the water requirements of the nation as a whole. 3. Assess adequacy of administrative and statutory means for coordination and implementation,of water.and related land resources policies and programs cf Federal agencies. 4. Determine principles, standards, and procedures for Federal participation in the preparation of comprehensive regional and river basin plans, and the formulation and evaluation of Federal water and related land resources prcjects. 5. Responsibilities regarding creation, operation, and termination of Federal- interstate river basin commissions, receiving plans from them, and transmitting these, with recommendations, to the President. 6. Administer grants to the states under Title III of the Water Resources Planning Act. 58 In addition to the Commissions established under the aegis. of the Water Resources Council, there are also river basin and other interstate organ- izations formed directly by the states involved and the Federal government. In the Middle Atlantic Region, these include the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Potomac River Basin Commission. Interstate compacts in general are constitutionally authorized instruments and are enforceable contracts between the member states, and are interpreted as law in all of them. The Delaware Compact provided for an estuary study, the setting of water quality standards, and a dete'rmination of the feasibility' of Commission operation of liquid waste collection and treatment systems for the river area. It subsequently estab- lished water standards and planned regional waste treatment facilities. - It also has regulatory authority which may be exercised independently of the constituent governmental entities. The Susquehanna and Potomac River Compacts were modeled after the Delaware Commission, but provide for specific consia- eration of environmental amenities. Thus, these three river basin commissions have the jurisdictional authority to consider estuaries in a broad compre- hensive manner, but only the Delaware Commission has the capability to en- force management regulations. Two other interstate compacts of note are the tri-state compact between New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut which establishes the Interstate Sanitation Commission for the Hudson and its adjacent coastal waters, and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. The latter created a single interstate district for an entire region including the coastal waters of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and parts of Connecticut and New York. All estuaries in those states are covered by the compact. Each State must adopt and enforce commission- issued standards and the commission may issue administrative abatement orders and initiate enforcement activities in some of the party States. The Interstate Sanitation Commission sets water quality requirements which it may enforce in court and provides planning for the area. It has measured the assimilative capacity of the tidal waters to provide a sound technical basis for abatement orders and its enforcement capabilities parallel those of participating state agencies (84). A water system of significant'proportions which is excluded from compre- hensive planning is the Everglades and the estuaries of Florida Bay, where it would appear that there is significant national interest beyond the purview of State and local governments which would require Federal-State coordination of activities concerning water flow continuity. Concluding the comments on this component of water quality and quantity, it is important to note that, aside from the independent interstate compact commissions, the jurisdiction of the Water Resources Council and its Commissions does not extend to implementing plans that are developed. The Council is one step removed from the actual conduct of intergovernmental relations in planning for estuaries. It does conduct basic studies into, regional water use, quality, and demand, but its principles and procedures are to guide and coordinate other Federal personnel whose actions most directly affect Federal estuarine management programs. 59 The primary Federal agency operating in estuarine areZLS. within the marine transportation component is the U. S. Army Corps of! Engineers. With respect to most activities.affecting wetlands, primary jurisdiction lies with the Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Any local government or private entity wishing to perform work ,'shoreline protection, harbor development, obtaining access to navigable waters, drainage, dredging, etc.) must apply to the Corps of Engineers before that work may begin. This authority is derived constitutionally from the war Powers and the Commerce Clause. Once a review process solely concerning effects on navigation, it has now evolved substantially to include envi- ronmental protection (96). First, the Corps must consider the policy of the Estuarine Areas Act, which requires all Federal agencies to give con- sideration to estuaries and their natural resources, and requires Public Works Projects performed by the Corps or any agency to contain in their plans and reports a@discussion by the Secretary of the Interior of the estuary involved and the effects of the project on its resources. Secondly, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires the Fish and Wildlife Service and the chief official of the State resource agency con- cerned with fish and wildlife resources to provide the Corps with their comments on the effect of the proposed project on such resources. these alone can form the basis for permit denials, compromises or imposition of mitigating features, a ground affirmed by the courts in the case of Zabel v. Tabbl. Guidelines have been promulgated by the.Fish and Wildlife Service to assist field personnel in reviewing applications for Corps per- mits2. Thirdly, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and, ultimately, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Corps of Engineers oust receive a certification from EPA or the State that the proposed project or activity will not adversely affect water quality and that it conforms to the coastal zone.management program. The Ocean Dumping Act and the FWPCA require the Corps to apply EPA standards and criteria in approving disposal of dredge spoil materials in oceans or in navigable waters. In addition, the Corps considers the guide- lines developed by the Water Resources Council in determining whether projects are in the public interest3. Consequently, the Army Corps of Engineers exercises jurisdiction over all coastal waters up to the mean high water line, including wetlands wholly or partially covered at high tide, in addition to those -waters "navigable in fact". Furthermore, Corps regulations themselves provide a higher standard of review when wetlands or marshes are involved4. '430 F2nd 199 (1970) 239.Fed. Reg. 29552 333 CFR 209.260 and 209.120 438 Fed. Reg. 24778 (1973) 60 Harbor maintenance involves other serious considerations. The National Port System consists of-more than 2,000 cargo' terminals which-are located for the most part in els.tuaries. 'The'economLc role of marine transportation cannot be overestimated and it must be accommodated in any plan's'fpr estu- arine use.' Navigation, construction.and:harbor maintenance are controlled by the Corps of Engineers but planning and development should be guideO by overall regional development plans in order to provide for the most appro- priate use and develo'pment of estuaries as a whole.(84). Thelast component.*of estuarine' management is the regulation offish- eries, a field most clearly in the province of State jurisdiction, The' most consistent thread running through the history of fisheries regulations in the United States is that, providing there is no conflict with Federal law, the regulation of fishing in territorial waters is within the police power of the individual State (49). The Submerged Lands Act corroborated this trend by encouraging coastal states to take necessary measures for the protection and conservation of natural resources, implying that Congress intended'to leave the matter of domestic jurisdiction over marginal-sea, areas to the individual states,,and-indicating that it was in the public interest for the states to manage-and conserve their own fisheries re- sources. Furthermore, it has been judicially declared that the States regulate fisheries, provided that Congress has not chosen to do so, and Congress,has apparently decided that the uniform regulation of fisheries is not in the best interest of'the nation due to the variations in fish- eries and the diversity in methods of capturel. State laws Trtust,therefor4 meet two tests: one against the supremacy clause in those instances where the State law and the Federal law attempt to regulate the same area, and another against other Federal constitutional commands such as due process and equal protection. Several interstate commissions have been created for the purpose of regulating fisheries, both with and without the participation of the.Federal government. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compacti the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Compact and the Pacific Marine Fisheries Compact are ex- amples of compacts composed of representatives from-each member state with the National Marine Fisheries Service acting in an advisory and research capacity as a participant. The'Potomac River Fisheries Commission, on the other hand, is an ex- ample of an 'interstate compact with no Federal participation,.being com posed solely of representatives from the States of Maryland and Virginia. In spite of this* strong State role, however, -the Federal government by virtue of the decision of Justice White in the case of U.__S. v. Maine, et al.2 enjoys exclusive control over living and non-living resources beyond a distance of three nautical miles from the coastline. The advent of increased foreign fishing effort, coupled with the lack of effective international fisheries regulations and the general deterioration of marine and estuarine environments, has had a seriously adverse effect on fisheries stocks. 'See cases in Suher and Hennessee, Part 1 (4 9). 235 Original, 17 March 1975, Opinion by Justice White. @61 Anadromous fishes, which spend a part of their life cycles in the estuarine environment but are subject to capture in areas beyond State jurisdictiion, pose special considerations which State management agencies have been unable to incorporate into their overall comprehensive plans for fisheries resources management. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is primarily responsible for providing technical and scientific assistance in the area of living resources and environmental protection, and a substantial amount of Federal financial assistance is provided through the Fish and Wildlife Service for acquisition, conservation, restoration and management of fish and game resources. There are, of course, many other areas in which the Federal institu- tional framework plays at least an indirect role in estuarine resource management. Federal foreign policy in international fisheries regulations, for example, affects anadromous and catadromous resources which may depend on estuaries, and development of outer continental shelf resources may dramatically affet the health of the estuaries. These factors, however, are too far removed from actual estuarine system management to be considered within the scope of this paper. It should be quite apparent from the foregoing that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consider within reasonable limits the vast breadth of decisions made with regard to estuarine management. Hopefully, however, the primary contributing factors in the exercise of Federal jurisdiction have been presented here. Major Federal statutes and the areas which they regulate are listed in Table 2.2. On the State level, it is perhaps unreasonable to expect that agencies will be created within the States' organizational frameworks to function solely or primarily as the manager of the States' estuarine areas, but awareness of the need for closer visible coordination and cooperation be- tween agencies serving planning, management, and advisory roles is in- creasing (101). The management and planning authorized in the Coastal Zone Management Act and the planning of the Water Resources Council and Its river basin commissions may provide the tools, but these programs are presently in the development stage and must be strengthened considerably in order to be truly effective. It is essential that critical decisions impacting estuaries be made not on the basis of specific site-related permit determinations, but rather on the basis of a general comprehensive planning policy which incorporates a consideration of all aspects of the estuarine environment. 62 Table 2.2. General Listing of Statutes Having an Impact on Estuaries; and Their Natural Resources. Preservation, Restoration and Management of Resources Management Statutes Acquisition of Property Research Migratory Water Fowl Refuge Act x 16 USC 695 Fish and Game Sanctuary Act x x 16 USC.-69,4B National Wilderness Act x x 16 USC 1131 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act x 16 USC 1271 National Conservation Recreational Areas Act x 16 USC 460D National'WildliIfe Refuge System Act x- x 16 USC 668 DD Land and Water Conservation Fund Act x 16 USC 460-4 Endangered Species Conservation Act x 16 USC 668 as Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act x 16 USC 718 Fish Restoration and Management Projects Act x 16 USC 777 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act x x x., 16 USC 757 a Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act x x 16 USC 60 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act x 43 USC 1331 Submerged Lands Act 43 USC 1301 Coastal Zone Management Act x 16 USC 1451 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act x 16 USC Ch 27 Estuarine Areas Act 16 USC 1221 Pollution Control Water J Statutes Dumping Research Management Regulation Marine Protection, Research x x x and Sanctuaries Act 33 USC 1401 Federal Water Pollution Control x x X x x Act Amendments 33 USC 1344 Rivers & Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 x x x 33 USC 401 Oil Pollution Act x x 33 USC 1001 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act x 43 USC 1331 Policy Statutes Review Power Goal/National Policy Statement National Environmental Policy Act x x 42 USC 4321 Estuarine Areas Act x x 16 USC 1221 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act x 16 USC 661 Department of Transportation Act x 49 USC 1655 STATE SECTION The following paragraphs.summarize at a State and regional level some of the legal and institutional.structures relevant to the estuarine assessment. Administrative organizations with unique or significant statutQry roles as well as specific'statutes having major impacts on-the estuarine environment are identified. An attempt,has been made to limit the d@s- cussion of State legislation t'o those'statutes which most directly affect- the estuarine environment since an enumeration of all State legislation possibly having an impact on estuarine areas is beyond the scope of this work. For example, most 'States have enabling legislation for.s.oine4egree of local zoning and some coastal States have recently enacted legislation pertaining to outer continental shelf development. These statUtE@S, whiLe definitely affecting estuarine resources, do so only indirectly and have, therefore, been omitted. Significant State and regional problems, as viewed by the.States themselves, relative to estuarine resource management are ELlso briefly summarized. Much of the information for this section is from "State'' Coastal Zone Management Activities, 1974" by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. New England (Region 01) The states of the New England Region face pressing energy shortages which have a severe impact on coastal and estuarine management programs. Pressures to locate oil refineries or deepwater ports have so far been resisted in the region. Demands for urbanand recreational development in the northeast indicate the need for coordinated action by all of the New England States. Innovative legislation in the region in- cludes Maine's Mandatory Shoreline Zoning and Subdivision Control Law and Massachusetts' Ocean Sanctuaries Act. These States have begun cooperative efforts toward management of estuarine and nearshore resources through a,number of regional compacts, the most well known of which is the New England River Basin Commission. Other important compacts include the New.England Interstate Water Pollution Control Compact and the North- eastern Water and Related Land Resources Compact. Maine Administrative Organizations Department of Environmental Protection Department of Marine Resources Department of Conservation Department of Transportation Department of Health and Welfare 64 Major Statutes (Revised Statutes of Maine) Coastal Conveyance of Petroleum Act (Title 38 541 (1973)) Mandatory Shoreline Zoning and Subdivision Control Law (Title 12 � 4811 (104)) Wetlands Act (Title 12 � 4701 (1974)) Site.Location of.Development Law (Title 38 481 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility State Planning Office Coastal Planning Group Department of Conservation Department of Marine Resources Problem Areas Lack of an objectively defined and workable resource base. Lack of administrative control point for the coastal research system as a whole. New Hampshire Administrative Organizations 12 state agencies, including Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. Major Statutes (New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated) Tidal Waters Act 483-A:l-a (1972)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Office of Comprehensive Planning Problem Areas Locational siting of a superport, oil refinery, nuclear power plant, and energy production facilities. Private development on salt marshes and in public waters. Massachusetts Administrative Organizations Office of Environmental Affairs Department of Natural Resources oo Major Statutes (Massachusetts General Laws Annotated) Coastal Wetlands Protection Act (Ch. 130 � 105 '(1974)) Ocean Sanctuaries Act (Ch. 132 A � 13 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Office of Environmental Affairs Department of Natural Resources 6.5 Problem Areas Need-to achieve balance.between-local, regional, and state decision-making,to define explicitly those instances-where state intervention in coastal management is necessary. Siting of,power and.oil-rel,ated facilities, control of air and water pollution- and'associated urban blight problems;.' Lack of adequate public recreation facilities in the co.astal zone. Connecticut Administrative Organizations Department of Environmental Protection Department of Preservation and Conservation Division of Edvironmental Quality Major Statutes (Connecticut General Statutes Annotated) Environmental Protection Act 22a-1 (1975)) Pollution Control and Wetlands Programs (Ch. 22) Coastal Zone Management Act. Responsibility Department of Environmental Protection Problem Areas Dense population,' urban and industrial development in coastal, zone areas. Threat of growth pressure and poor water quality in critical coastal areas. Limited public access to the shoreline. Rhode Island Administrative'Organ zations Coastal Resources Management Council Department of Administration Major Statutes (General Laws of Rhode Island Annotated) Coastal Management Act of 1971 42-723-1 (1971)) Intertidal Salt Marshes Act 11-46.1-1 (1968)) Coastal Wetlands Act 2-1-13 (1968)) coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Administration Coastal Resources M4fiagement.Council. Department of Natural Resources 66 Problem Areas Private control of shoreline areas, lack of public access to the shoreline. Lack of adequate plans for handling dredge materials, toxic wastes, solid wastes, and other potential pollutants. Inadequate administrative tools for development control. Middle Atlantic (Region 02) The six states of the Middle Atlantic Region face complex and varied problems relating to their estuarine and marine resources. New York and New Jersey are.confronted with intense urban pressures for residential, industrial, and recreational shoreline development. States to the south are not as highly urbanized, but must balance the conflicting demands of both urban and rural areas regarding their coastal zone areas. In re- sponse, Delaware has enacted an innovative, though restrictive, Coastal Zone Act. Most of the Middle Atlantic States have consolidated their environmental programs into a Department of Environmental Affairs or Department of Natural Resources. Virginia has not,and as a result there are overlapping jurisdictional authorities among the thirty-seven state agencies which affect the coastal zone. Important interstate compacts within the Middle Atlantic Region include the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Delaware River Basin Commission, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and the Susquehanna River Basin Compact. New York Administrative Organizations Department of Environmental Conservation Office of Planning Services Environmental Facilities Corporation Department of Health Major Statutes (McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York) Environmental Conservation Law (N. Y. Env. Conserv. Law 1-0101 (1973)) Tidal Wetlands Act (N. Y. Env. Conserv. Law � 25-01,01 (1974)) Stream Protection Act (N. Y. Env. Conserv. Law 11-0503 (1973)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Environmental Conservation Office of Planning Services Problem Areas Competing land and water uses. Degradation of state wetlands. Development of port facilities. Demand for urban recreational opportunities. 67 New Jersey Administrative Organizations Department of Environmental Protection Divididn-of Marine Services Office-of Environmental Analysis Major Statutes (New Jersey Statutes Annotated) Coastal Wetlands Act ( � 13:9A-1 (1975)) Coastal Area Facility Review Act 13:19-1 (1975)) Coastal Zone Management Act R esponsibility DepirtmeiE_ of Environmental Protection Problem Area's Large"scale uncontrolled residential and commercial waterfront development. Effects of energy development and waste disposal on coastal resources and ecosystems. Decline of older, re'sort-oriented urban areas. Delaware Admifiistrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control MajorStAtutes (Delaware Code Annotated) Coastal Zone Act (Title 7 � 7001 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility State Planning Office Coastal Zone Management Committee Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ProblemAreas Demand for expanded deepwater ports. Intense development of resort-related areas along coast. Lack of understanding of relationships between development pressures and ecological resources. Pennsylvania Administrative Organizations Department of Environmental Resources Department of Transportation Major Statutes (Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated) Statewide Environmental Master Plan (71 'P.S. @ 510 (1974)) Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Act (32 P.S. 5101 (1974)) Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. � 691.4 (1974)) Open Space Preservation Act (16 P.S. � 11.941 (1974)) 68 Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibilit Department of Environmental Resources Problem Areas Need for consolidated management program. Resolution of conflicting public and private rights. Need for balance between urban and ecological demands. Maryland Administrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Majo Statutes (Annotated Code of Maryland) Wetlands Act (NR � 9-101 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Natural Resources Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Zone Advisory Commission Problem Areas Loss of wetlands due to development pressures. Demand for energy-related industry. Increasing port activity. Virginia Administrative Organization 37 separate state agencies, including Virginia Marine Resources Commission, State Water Control Board, Department of Health, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Major Statutes (Code of Virginia) Virginia Wetlands Law ( � 62.1-13.1 (1973)) State Water Resources Law ( � 62.1-1.3 (1973)) Critical Environmental Areas Legislation 10-190 (1974)) Open Space Land Act ( � 10-152 (1974)) Erosion and Sediment Control Law ( � 21-89.1 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Coastal Zone Advisory Committee Division of State Planning and Community Affairs Virginia Institute of Marine Science Problem Areas Coordination of separate state agencies. Lack of comprehensive coastal zone plan. Demand for residential and recreational development. Demand for offshore petroleum development. 69 South Atlantic (Region 03) The states of the South Atlantic Region are largely rural in character and do not face the intense urban pressures of the northeastern states. Florida, however, is an exception. It must deal with the conflicting needs for urban, recreational, and industrial growth. Florida's fragile marine and nearshore environment has been imperiled by man's activities. Other South Atlantic states must also respond to increasing demands for recreational, residential and industrial shoreline development. The problem of shoreline destruction and increasing water pollution are faced by all South Atlantic states. Interstate compacts in the region include the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact and the Coastal Plain Regional Commission. Innovative legislation in the region is typified by Florida's Environmental Land and Water Management Act. North Carolina Administrative,.Organizations Department of Administration Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Marine Affairs Marine Science Council Division of Health Services Major Statutes (General Statutes of North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act ( � 143B-282 (1974)) Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 ( � 113A-100 (1974)) Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act ( � 113A-50 (19 ..74)) Wetlands Protection Act 113-230 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Resgonsibility Department of Natural and Economic Resources Office of Marine Affairs Department of Administration Coastal Resources Commission Problem Areas Balancing need for economic and transportation development with wildlife and fisheries needs. Maintaining water quality. Providing shoreline recreation opportunities. South Carolina Administrative Organizations Wildlife and Marine Resources Department Department of Health and Environmental Control 70 Major Statutes (Code of Laws of South Carolina) Pollution Control Act 63-195 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Coastal Zone Planning and Management Council Problem Areas Methods needed to assist industrial development while minimizing environmental impacts. Conflicts between increasing pressure for coastal area development and need for environmental protection. Resort and urban growth in areas subject to flooding, hurricanes, unsuitable soils and erosion. Georgia Administrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources Coastal Zone Management Policy Development Committee Major Statutes (Georgia Code Annotated) Coastal Marshlands Protection Act ( � 45-136 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Office of Planning and Budget State Department of Law Department of Natural Resources Problem Areas Lack of intergovernmental cooperation and coordinated policy in the coastal zone. Increasing demand for development impacting on fragile coastal zone resources. Inadequate water treatment facilities and decline of water quality. Florida Administrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources Coastal Coordinating Council Major.Statutes (Florida Statutes Annotated) Environmental Land and Water Management Act 380.012 (1974)) Internal Improvement Trust Fund Act ( � 253.67 (1975)) Coastal Zone Management Act ( � 370.0211 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management_Act Responsibility Coastal Coordinating Council (Department of Natural Resources) Department of Administration 71 Problem Areas Lack of jurisdictional distinctions among the various Tederal, State, county andmunicipal agencies with.coastal zone management functions. Destruction of marine environment through beach erosion and dredge and fill projects. Gulf Coast-Lower Mississippi (Regions 08, 12) The states of the Gulf Coast are faced with the prospect of greatly in- creased activity in the energy field. Increased exploration, industrial development, and refining needs threaten efforts to preserve coastal areas. In addition, increased fishing activity may affect the marine resources of the area. There is also increased pressure for public and recreational access to the limited coastal areas. Finally, much of the area is susceptible to hurricane damage, which can magnify the environmental problems posed by all of the preceding issues. The Gulf States, however, have acted to ensure bettermanagement of coastal d areas. Although authority is somewhat fragmented in the several states among a variety of governmental entities, recent action in several states may lead to a more coordinated effort. Mississippi, for example, placed primary re- sponsibility for coastal areas in its Marine Resources Council, made up of the Governor and the heads of several other departments involved. in con- servation and environmental matters. This approach can cut across jurisdictional lines and focus governmental power on coastal zone problems. Interstate cooperation ranging from bi-state cooperation to multi-@'state compacts is also evident in the Gulf Region. Mississippi and Alabama participate in the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium and have joined in planning for an off-shore port facility. Compacts include the Tennessee River Basin Water Pollution Control Compact and the Gulf State Marine Fisheries Compact. Such cooperation among coastal zone states would seem useful in developing a regional approach to problem solving. Texas Administrative Organizations School Land Board Texas Coastal and Marine Council Interagency Natural Resources Council General Land Office Major Statutes (Vernon's Texas Statutes) Coastal Public Lands Management Act (Art. 5415e-1 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Texas General Land 6ffi@_e Texas Coastal and Marine Council Highway Department Industrial Commission Water Quality Board 72 Problem Areas Need for coordinated planning to permit growth and economic development without sacrificing recreational and environmental values. Shortage of freshwater supply in certain areas. Decision making done on local level, often at expense of state or national interests. Jurisdiction divided among numerous governmental entities. Louisiana Administrative Organizations State Planning Office Department of Conservation State Land Office Louisiana Coastal Commission Louisiana Energy Commission Council on Environmental Quality Major Statutes (Louisiana Revised Statutes) Coastal and Marine Resources Conservation and Development Act ( � 51:1361 (1975)) Natural Resources and Energy Act 30:501 (1975)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility State Planning Office Wildlife and Fisheries Commission Louisiana State University Sea Grant Program Problem Areas Saltwater intrusion into previously fresbwate.r areas, especially in areas where fresh water is already in short supply. Pressures for increased energy exploration and development must be balanced against potential environmental damages. Alabama Administrative Organizations Alabama Development Office Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Alabama State Docks Authority Alabama Highway Department Major Statutes (Code of Alabama) Coastal Areas Development Act (Title 8 � 312 (1973)) Environmental Improvement Authorities Act (Title 8 � 270 (1973)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Alabama Development Offi-ce Alabama Coastal Area Board Department of Conservation and Natural Resources South Alabama Regional Planning Commission 73 Problem Areas Increased pressures for development of state coastal areas. Decreasing supply,of fresh water. Plans for increased petroleum production in offshore areas pose new problems for coastal areas. Mississippi Administrative Organizations Marine Resources Council Marine Conservation Commission Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Air and Water Pollution Control Commission Major Statutes (Mississippi Code Annotated) Coastal Wetlands Protection Act ( � 49-27-1 (1974)) Air and Water Pollution Control Law ( � 49-17-1 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Marine Resources Council Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium Southern Mississippi Planning and Development District Gulf Regional Planning Commission Problem Areas Increased competition for use of available coastal. areas for a variety of uses. Problems associated with increased development of the petroleum industry. Inadequate planning to locate coastal development in areas least prone to hurricane damage. Pacific (Regions 17, 18, 19, 20) The states in the Pacific face a variety of problems in the coastal areas. Rising populations and pressure to develop the coastal areas threaten the preservation of delicate ecological areas. Pressures for commercial, industrial, and residential development threaten public access to coastal areas. Hawaii, California, and Oregon seem particularly affected by these pressures. Increased demands for energy require stepped up exploration and development of energy resources. California, Washington, and Alaska are perhaps most affected by the problems associated with such energy development activity. Alaska is unique among the states due to its great size, small population and the large role the Federal government occupies in state affairs. Within the entire -region, however, coordinated Pacific states have also shown they can work together on various interstate matters, as indicated by their cooperation in the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Compact, the Columbia River Fisheries Compact, and the Pacific Northwest River Basin Compact. Further 4@_oordinated action on an interstate basis may be developed in planning future. coastal zone development and conservation. 74 Calif ornia Administrative Organizations California Coastal Zone Commission State Lands Commission Department of Conservation Office of Planning and Research Department of Parks and Recreation Major Statutes (California Annotated Public Resources Code) Coastal Zone Conservation Act ( � 27304 (1975)) Environmental Quality Act ( � 21000 (1975)) Outdoor Recreation Resources Planning Act 5099 (1972)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility California Coastal Zone Commission Department of Navigation and Ocean Development San Francisco Conservation and Development Commission Delta Advisory Planning Council Problem Areas Fragmenta tion of authority with a resultant lack of coordination among.various governmental entities with coastal jurisdiction. Preserving the ecological balance in the face of pressures for increased residential and energy development. Oregon Administrative Organizations Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission State Highway Commission Division of State Lands Department of Environmental Quality Major Statutes (Oregon Revised Statutes) Coastal Conservation and Development Act 191.150 (1974)) Ocean Shores Act ( � 390.605 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission Problem Areas Fragmentation of decision-making among special purpose@ units of government. Conflicting pressures of economic development and environmental protection and conservation. Need for baseline data for development of management standards. 75 Washington Administrative Organizations Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources State Planning and Community Affairs Agency State Parks and Recreation Commission Major Statutes (Revised Code of Washington Annotated) Shoreline Management Act ( � 90.58.010 (1974)) State Environmental Policy Act ( � 43.21C (1974)) Natural Area Preserves Act 79.70.010 (1974)) Marine Recreation Land Act 43.99 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources University of Washington Sea Grant Program Puget Sound Governmental Conference Problem Areas Increased pressure to develop valuable shorelands of the, state. Need for increased coordination among the state and local agencies involved in coastal planning. Increasing the limited public access to the coaStELI area and increasing recreational facilities. Alaska Administrative.Organizations Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Natural Resources State Water Resources Board Environmental Advisory Board Major Statutes (Alaska Statutes) Alaska Water Use Act ( � 46.15.010 (1971)) Environmental Conservation Act � 46.03.010 (1971)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Environmental Conservation Problem Areas Domestic and foreign effort leading to excessive exploitation of fishing resources. Environmental threats from increased oil exploration and production. Conflicting use demands for shoreline and other competing interest groups. Unpopularity of management planning which seems to impede economic development as demands for development of energy and natural resources increase. 76 Hawaii Administrative Organizations State Department of Planning and Economic Development State Land Use Commission Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Environmental Quality Control Natural Area Reserves System Commission Major Statutes (Hawaii Revised Statutes) Coastal Zone Management Act ( � 205A-1 (1974)) Hawaii Land Use Law ( � 205-2 (1974)) Natural Area Reserves System Act 195-1 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibilities Department of Planning and Economic Development Department of Land and Natural Resources University of Hawaii Problem Areas Coordination of coastal zone planning with other land use planning to develop a coordinated framework. Definition of coastal zone boundaries in Hawaii's unique geographical situation. Need.to deal with problems on resort and residential shoreline 40 uses, coupled with lack of public access to the state's shorelines. Great Lakes (Region 04) The Great Lakes States face problems in several areas. High lake levels have greatly increased damage from flooding and shoreline erosion. Increasing populations have led to increased demands for public access to shorelands. At the same time there has been a corresponding increase in pressures to develop coastal areas for residential use. Water quality is also recognized as a major problem. The problem of fragmented responsibility for the management of the coastal areas is evident in the States of this region. Some States have acted to remedy the situation, either by directing local entities to take action, as in Wisconsin, or by placing primary responsibility for management and coordination with a single state agency, as Michigan has done. The problem, however, has not been remedied everywhere. For example, Indiana has only recently expressed an interest in participating in the program of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and as of yet has no firm plan for management of its coastal resources. oo The Great Lakes States have shown an ability to coordinate their activity on a bi-state or multi-state level, as evidenced by the existence of several compacts. Among those are the Wabash Valley Compact, the Lake Superior Basin Water Quality Management Plan, and the well known Great Lakes Basin Compact, in which all the Great Lakes States participate. The planning and coordinating functions of the Great Lakes Compact could 77 be effectively utilized in improving the coastal zone management system. Minnesota Administrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Resources Commission State Planning Agency Department of Economic Development Department of Highways State Environmental Quality Council Major Statutes (Minnesota Statutes Annotated) Shorelands Protect Act ( � 105.485*(1974)) Minnesota Critical Areas Act ( � 116G.01 (1974)) Regional Development Act ( � 462.381 (1974)) Natural Resources and Recreation Act ( � 86.01 (1964)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Natural Resources Department of Economic Development Arrowhead Regional Development Commission Problem Areas Lack of land use controls, resul ting in strip development in many shoreland areas. Need for greater public land holding to insure inci@eased public access to shoreline areas. Need to protect against increased erosion. Wisconsin Administrative.O.rganizati6ns Department of Administration, State Planning Office Department of Natural Resources State Coastal Zone Coordinating and Advisory Councj'l Major Statutes (Wisconsin Statutes Annotated) Navigable Waters Protection Act ( � 144.26 (1974)) State Conservation Act ( � 23.09 (1974)) State Water Resources Act ( � 144.025 (1974)) Shorelands Zoning Act 59.971 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Administration State Coastal Zone Coordinating and Advisory Council Department of Natural Resources University of Wisconsin Various regional planning and development commissions Problem Areas Erosion of shoreline areas. Inadequate public access to the Great Lakes. Increased demand for economic development which threatens ecologically sensitive areas. 78 Illinois. Administrative Organizations Department of Conservation Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Control Board Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality Major Statutes (Illinois Annotated Statutes) Environmental Protection Act (Ch. lll'-, �1001 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Conservation Department of Transportation State Coastal Zone Advisory Council Shoreline Advisory Committee Northeast Illinois Planning Commission Problem Areas Need to inject consideration of state and national needs into decisions which are now made largely on the local level. Need to establish priorities in the increasing competition for available coastal land. Problem of defining a coastal zone boundary in a@heavily urbanized setting. Indiana Administrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources Recreational Development Commission Indiana Environmental Management Board State Environmental Quality Board Major Statates No coastal zone management act. Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility State Planning Services Agency (preliminary) Problem Areas No coastal zone management act. Need for more public access to the state's limited coastal areas. Michigan Administrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources 'Natural Resources Commission 79 0 Major Statutes (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated) Shorelands Protection and Management Act ( � 281.631 (1975)) Wilderness and Natural Areas Act ( � 322.751,(1975)) Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act ( � 554.701 (1975)) Flood, Drainage, and Beach Erosion Control Act 281.601 (1967)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Natur Resources 10 Regional planning agencies Problem Areas Only minimal local planning programs for much@of the shoreland area, which is subject to increasing recreational and residential demands. Need for rehabilitation of blighted urban waterfront areas. Need to deal effectively with serious damage resulting from. flooding and erosion. Ohio Administrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Agency Ohio Water Commission Major Statutes (Ohio Revised Code Annotated) Nature Preserves Act 1517.01 (1973)) Wild Rivers Areas Act 1501.16 (1973)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Natural Resources Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments Eastgate Development and Transportation Agency Problem Areas Deterioration of resources. Increased flooding and shore erosion. Intense development along shoreline. Jurisdictional conflict and duplication of efforts by various agencies involved with coastal management. Caribbean (Region 21) Because of their unique status as Commonwealth and Territory, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands face unusual problems relating to management of their marine and nearshore environments and have had to develop innovative programs to confront these issues. Major problems in the region include the degradation of the shore environment on which these islands' economies depend. Increasing pollution is the result of developmental pressures in both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Both jurisdictions seek to in- crease public access to their shoreline, now largely dominated by private ownership. 80 Puerto Rico Administrative Organizations Department of Natural Resources Puerto Rico Planning Board Environmental Quality Board Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Department of Natural Resources Puerto Rico Planning Board Environmental Quality Board Problem Areas Controlling extraction of beach sand for construction purposes. Controlling coastal land uses, including industrial and harbor development, power plant construction and operation, tourism industries, residential development and waste treatment facilities. Virgin Islands Administrative Organizations Virgin Islands Planning Office Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs Major Statutes (Virgin Islands Code Annotated) Environmental Protection Act (Title 12 � 531 (1974)) Open Shorelines Act (Title 12 � 401 (1974)) Coastal Zone Management Act Responsibility Virgin Islands Planning Office Problem Areas Private ownership of shoreline areas suitable for recreation. Legal issues affecting title to submerged lands, and overlapping jurisdiction of territorial agencies, the Federal Government and Denmark. 81 CHAPTER 3 ESTUARINE RESOURCE HARVEST AND PROJECTIONS Waldon Kerns and Ivar Strand This portion of the Assessment of Estuarineand Nearshore Marine Resources report provides: 1) an analysis of recent resource harvest; 2) a discussion of threats to 'resource bases from harvest competition; and 3) a discussion of future harvest projections. RECENT RESOURCE HARVEST STATISTICS Recent harvest statistics for estuarine related resources are presented in this part of the report. Statistics on commercial harvest of fish and shellfish and the related fisheries industry are discussed first. A discussion of sportfishing and waterfowl harvest follows the commercial harvest discussion. A description of other wildlife harvest, bird watching and photography, and recreational boating completes the harvest statistics section. Commercial Fisheries .The ex-vessel value of estuarine dependent (Appendix 1) commercial fish and shellfish in the U. S. was $490 million in 1972. This-value represents approximately 70 percent of the total $704 million U. S. commercial fish catch (72). Tihansky and Meade(104) indicate that 65-90 percent of landings, depending on the region, is comprised of estuarine dependent species. As shown in Table 3.1, the Lower Mississippi Region had the large@st catch in weight with over a billion pounds caught. The Middle Atlantic Region was a close second with over 856) million pounds caught. While the Texas-Gulf Region had a catch of only 109 million pounds, their ex-vessel value of approximately $84 million was the highest regional ex-vessel value of catch. The lowest ex-vessel value of catch was approximately $133,000 for the Hawaii Region. Table 3.1. Estuarine Dependent Commercial Fish Harvest by Water Resource Regions, 19721. Ex-Vessel Va Region Weight (lbs) (197, d.".,.!@@e New England 196,533,952 54,388,351 Middle Atlantic 856,156,152 66,836,138 S0uth Atlantic 229,010,976 35,266,371 East Gulf 99,185,168 53,433,712 Lower Mississippi 1,039,749,120 69,742,976 Texas-Gulf 109,538,224 83,681,47i California-South Pacific 48,756,780 9,113,316 C lumbia-North Pacific 108,327,952 35,996,994 Aolask 369,473,168 74,119,052 Great Lakes 59,501,060 7,193,780 Hawaii 86,594 133,688 Total 3,107,319,146 489,905,870 Source: Unpublished 1972 statistics from National Marine Fishery Service, NOAA. lAppendix 1 contains list of estuarine dependent species. Commercial Fishing by Region According to the 1970 Estuarine Study: "The most important estuary dependent or associated fish are: shrimp, salmon, lobster, flounder, blue, stone and rock crab, clams, oysters, and menhaden. The shrimp fishery is of great importance to coastal economics of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regions. Oysters are particularly important to the Chesapeake economy. Clams support a significant sector of the coastal economics in the Middle Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay Regions. The salmon fishery is of critical importance to the economy of Alaska, and lobster fishing contributes significantly to the New England economy, especially in Maine and Rhode Island. Harvesting of menhaden, the major U.S. landed fish used for animal feed and for industrial purposes, has made important contributions to the Chesapeake Bay and South Atlantic Regions and is becoming increasingly important to the Gulf States" ( 84, p. 17). These statements are substantiated in Table 3.2 which indicates the most important estuarine dependent species, in terms of weight and dollar value, for Wat6r Resource Regions. An inspection of that table reveals that sea herring accounts for 44 percent of the New England poundage but only 4.2 percent of the dollar volume. Northern lobster accounts for only 14.7 percent of the poundage but 64.2 percent of the dollar volume. Menhaden makes up 66.8 percent of the weight volume in the Atlantic whereas oysters account for the largest dollar percentage with 28.5 percent. Menhaden also accounts for the largest landings in the South Atlantic, East-Gulf and Lower Mississippi regions with 46.3 percent, 66.3 percent and 89.3 percent, respectively. In each of these three regions shrimp returns the largest dollar value at 52.1 percent, 69.1 percent and 67.5 percent, respectively. Shrimp also accounts for 89 percent of the landings and 95.7 percent of the dollar volume in the Texas-Gulf Region. In the Columbia-North Pacific Region, four salmon species account for 42.2 percent of the quantity and 67.4 percent of the dollar volume. In California, squid makes up 41. 3 percent of landings, but several species account for higher dollar value. Salmon, crab, and shrimp are the major weight and dollar volume species in Alaska. In Hawaii, spiny lobsters account for 83.9 percent of the weight volume as well as 77.6 percent of the dollar volume. Another interesting characterization of regional fisheries is the motivation of the fishermen (9). The first group, representing the majority of fishermen, has non-monetary rewards such as independence and pleasure of the sea as one of their primary objectives. They use relatively unsophisticated production technology and usually own and operate their own boats. Participation in the fisheries is frequently 83 Table 3.2. Most Important Species of Estuarine Dependent Commercial Fish Harvest by Water Resource Regions, 1972. Landings % Total Landings % Total Most Important Pounds Region Dollars Region Region Species (1,000) Landings (1,000) Dollars New England Sea Herring 87,612 44.0 2,286 4.2 Menhaden 30,692 15.6 416 0.8 Northern Lobster 28,886 14.7 34,394 64.2 Unclassified Shrimp 24,460 12.2 4,587 8.4 Middle Atlantic Menhaden 572,146 66.8 11,638 17.4 Hard Crabs 78,484 9.2 9,459 12.7 Northern Lobster 3,380 0.4 4,744 7.1 Hard Clams 12,322 1.4 16,108 21.1 Oysters 26,469 3.0 19,051 28.5 40 South Atlantic Herring 21,424 9.4 366 1.0 Menhaden 105,951 46.3 1,502 4.2 Hard Crabs 36,248 15.8 3,631 10.0 Spiny Lobster 6,433 2.8 6,413 18.0 Unclassified Shrimp 25,248 11.0 18,469 52.1 East Gulf Menhaden 178,917 66.3 2,935 5.5 Spiny Lobster 5,379 2.0 5,746 10.8 Unclassified Shrimp 48,327 17.9 36,935 69.1 Lower Mississippi Menhaden 928,251 89.3 15,279 21.9 Unclassified Shrimp 83,031 8.0 47,063 67.5 Texas-Gulf Hard Crabs 6,464 5.9 653 0.8 Unclassified Shrimp 97,577 89.0 80,098 95.7 10 California- King Salmon 4,251 8.7 3,330 36.5 South Pacific Coho Salmon 2,172 4.5. 1,499 16.4 Rockfishes 16,334 34.5 1,484 16.3 Oysters 885 1.8 762 8.7 Squid 20,159 41.3 534 5.9 Columbia- Unclassified Cod 10,423 9.6 778 2.2 North Pacific. Rockfishes 16,351 15.1 1,110 3.1 King Salmon 12,639 11.7 7,433 20.8 Chum Salmon 9,530 8.8 3,884 10.8 Red Salmon 7,172 6.6 3,645 10.1 Silver Salmon 16,346 15.1 9,232 25.7 Ocean Shrimp 22,313 20.6 3,140 8.7 Pacific Oyster 7,486 6.9 5,422 15.1 Alaska Red Salmon 41,942 11.4 10,732 14.5 Coho Salmon 13,007 3.5 5,738 7.7 Chum Salmon 64,778 17.5 11,827 16.0 King Crab 94,244 25.5 31,840 43.0 Tanner Crab 46,010 12.5 5,637 7.6 Shrimp 83,826 22.7 4,217 5.7 Great Lakes Alewives 29,654 46.6 305 4.6 Carp 7,287 11.4 341 5.1 Chubs 7,523 11.8 1,481 22.3 White Fish 3,955 6.2 1,865 28.0 Yellow Perch 4,024 6.3 1,221 18.0 Hawaii Hard Crabs 5 5.7 8 5.1 Spiny Lobster 73 83.9 104 77.6 Squid 3 3.5 17 12.7 Source: Unpublished 1972 statistics from National Marine Fishery Service, NOAA, California data for 1971. Alaska data (1973) from Alaska Catch and Production Commercial Fisheries Statistics, Statistical Leaflet No. 26, 1973. 84 seasonal and will vary from year to year. This group includes inshore lobster fishermen in New England and Pacific salmon and tuna fishermen. Salmon gill netting in the Columbia-North Pacific and Alaska regions is an example of a highly seasonal, low investment enterprise. The Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico support a sizable hook and line and net fish- ery. Many watermen in the Chesapeake Bay belong to this category. The second group of fishermen is those for whom the monetary.rewards are of primary importance, but non-monetary rewards are also a part of the objective function. Production technology tends to be more complex but less skill is required. Investment is higher and there may be one to six employees. Boats are generally utilized.in more than one fishery. The Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishermen exemplify this group. The offshore lobster fishermen of New England with the ability to fish flounder and cod are included in this group. Others include North Atlantic scallop fishermen; the North Atlantic drag boat skipper; West Coast shrimp, sole, rockfish and cod fishermen; North Pacific halibut; Washington and Alaska salmon purse seine fishermen; and the Pacific Northwest combination boat skipper. The third group has an objective function in which monetary rewards clearly dominate. These fishermen are least in number but greatest in economic importance. Production technology is very complex and fre- quently requires employment of technical specialists. Investments of over $1 million are common with a few fishing companies owning and 10 operating several $1 million boats. As many as 15 employees may be on board a vessel. The king crab fishermen of Western Alaska demonstrate this group as do some Western Alaska shrimp fishermen, Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishermen, and North Atlantic drag boat skippers. The Processing and Wholesaling Sectors The ex-vessel values underestimate the total importance of commercial fishing to the regional economies. Additional economic activity is generated by the processing, transportation, and marketing segments of the commercial fisheries. In 1972, for example, the estuarine regions had a total of 1,725 fishery processing plants and 1,759 wholesale plants (Table 3.3). Of the processing plants, 345 are located in the Middle Atlantic Region. In addition to the 86,699 full-time and 68,129 part-time commercial fishermen in the U. S., average yearly employment was approximately 56 thousand in processing and over 8 thousand in whole- saling (72). The largest employment of fishermen, processors, and wholesalers was in the New England and Middle Atlantic regions. 85 Table 3.3. Commercial Fishery Retail and Wholesale Activity by Water Resource Regions, 19721. Number Plants Avg. Yearly Emp. Comme.-cial Fist7er-ies Region Processing @_holesale Processing Wholesale Fulltine Total New England 231 269 7,543 1,266 11,940 26,749 Middle Atlantic 345 411 9,822 2,204 .13,9313 28,943 South Atlantic 162 283 4,771 867 8,896 12,325 East Gulf 211 196 5,654 722 9,035 11,257 Lower Mississippi 124 105 3,262 410 9,200 12,550 Texas-Gulf 82 78 2,561 708 6,611) 1:@,895 California- South Pacific 94 80 6,854 720 6,043 11,200 Columbia- North Pacific 130 28 3,770 266 3,720 1:3,705 Alaska 223 2062 3,500 ND 14,720 13,400 Great Lakes 92 87 1,658 862 74.3 3,017 Hawa113 26 16 3,033 193 1,36.3 1,693 Caribbean 5 ND 4,084 ND 14815 :Lq94 48 Total . 1,725 1,759 56,512 8,218 86,69-3 154,828 Source: Current Fishery Statistics No. 6400, Fisheries of the U.S., 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, March 1974, pp. 86-88. Caribbean data was for Puerto Rico and obtained from Fishery Statistics of U.S., 1971, Statistical Digest No. 65, NOAA, October, 1974, p. 379. iStatistics are state totals for those states that are contiguous to marine waters. 2Personal letter from Howard Ness, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska. 31ncludes Hawaii and American Samoa. ND, No data available. Processors can be differentiated in terms of scale and'. vertical integration (9). Dealers as opposed to processors handle a majority of the South Atlantic finfishes, northern lobster, troll-caught salmon, some blue and dungeness crabs, and clams. The dealer may hold fish on ice or in cold storage for only a day or two, then ship to the wholesale or retail market. Sales volumes for processors range from $50,000 to $100 million. Only^36 percent of the 200 west coast processors and dealers had sales in excess of $500,000. Processors at the top in sales generally are highly integrated manufacturing and marketing organizations dealing in nearly every seafood product. Most other seafood processors and dealers tend to specialize in two, three, or four seafoods and obtain supplies on a regional rather than a,national basis. Most: of the approximately 80 fishery cooperatives in the U.S. Simply ELCt as agents for their members. Technological advances in the fishing industry during the next decade will primarily affect the fishing fleet rather than fixed estuary facili- ties. "The trend in fishing is toward larger operating units. Vessels are becoming larger as more effective gear and storage facilities permit greater fishing ranges and increased catches at sea. The presence of Russian and Japanese fleets with large stern trawlers and factory ships capable of processing entire catches at sea clearly indicates the trend" (84, p.18). 86 Sport Fishing Confusion exists over the evaluation of sport fisheries because of the inability to define and accurately measure the product. One reason is that estuarine and other areas of sportfishing activities provide a fishing experience rather than just the fish as a commodity. An example of this inaccuracy of sportfishing evaluation is exemplified by the following quote from a study of recreational fishing by the National Marine Fisheries Service: "The 1910 Salt-Water Angling Survey (Current Fishery Statistics No. 6200., National Marine Fisheries Service, 1973) estimated that 3,433,000 salt-water anglers fished from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in 1970. The present survey covered essentially the same area (Maine through Virginia) and estimated 10,856,000 anglers fished during 1973-1974" (75, p.7). The difference in the number of anglers estimated by the two surveys results from the following: age of persons included, minimum time spent fishing, inclusion or exclusion of shellfish, and the passage of time between surveys. Despite these measurement difficulties, people familiar with the subject believe that sportfishing and other recreational values are substantial with a dollar impact at least equal to that of the com- mercial industry (94, PP. 14-15). For example, a 1970 study by the National Marine Fisheries Service (70) shows a national total of more than 9 million saltwater anglers with a catch of 1.6 billion pounds (Table 3.4). Saltwater anglers would have to spend only $67 per day on sportfishing to equal the ex-vessel value of 1970 U.S. landings. It is important to note that saltwater anglers fish both in estuaries (tidal rivers, bays, lagoons, sounds) and oceans, with 57 percent of fish landings taken in estuaries (95, p.2). Table 3.4. Estimated Number of Salt-Water Anglers and Their Catches by Region, 1970. Fish Catch Number Anglers Number Weight (lbs) Region (1,000 (1,000) North Atlantic - New England and New York 1,666 117,014 267,451 Middle Atlantic - New Jersey to Cape Hatteras 1,767 168,209 246,267 South Atlantic - Cape Hatteras to Florida Keys 1,808 184,177 403,913 East Gulf of Mexico - Florida West Coast to Mississippi River 1,478 188,888 334,120 West Gulf of Mexico - Mississippi River to@Texas 872 97,708 151,608 South Pacific - Pt. Conception South 894 37,221 94,234 North Pacific - Pt. Conception North 1,311 24,100 79,230 All Regions 9,392 817,317 1,567,823 Source: 1970 Salt-Water Angling Survey, Current Fishery Statistics No. 6200, National Marine Fishery Service, NOAA, April, 1973, p. 29. 'Survey regions used in Source. 87 Table 3.4 shows that the South Atlantic Region, whichincludes the area from Cape Hatteras to the. Florida Keys, had t 'he largest number of anglers as well as the largest catch of approximately 404 million pound%. The smallest number of anglers appeared in the West Gulf of Mexico Region which includes the area from the Mississippi. River through Texas. However, this region had a larger catch in pounds than the South and North Pacific regions. Another source, the National Survey of Hunting and Fishing (85), provides a breakdown of saltwater fishing by the three coastal areas. The Atlantic coast with over 5 million fishermen in 1970 had over 50 percent of the national total as well as over 50 percent of the recre- ational days (Table 3.5). However, the Gulf coast sport fishermen spent an average of $178 on fishing activity as compared to onl, $128 for the Atlantic coast and $84 for the Pacific coast. The average expenditure for all fishermen was $129 per person and $11 per recreation day. Thus sportfishing expenditures in 1970 exceeded the ex-vessel value of seafood landings. A separate study of Southeastern saltwater fishing (21) indicates that the average value per day as determined by participants for salt- water fishing is $59*.80 per day as compared to $40.84 for freshwater fishing. Table 3.5. Time and Money Spent on Salt-Water Sport Fishing in Coastal Areas, 1970. Number Fished Amount Spent in Salt-Water Per Number Recreation (12 and over) Total Person Days Area (1,000) (1,000) ($) (1,000) Atlantic Coast 5,010 636,380 127 51,032 Gulf Coast 2,272 404,646 178 35,624 Pacific Coast 2,178 183,679 84 -17,C37 Total 9,460 1,224,705 129 113,694 Source: National Survey of Fishing and Hunting, 1970. Fish and-Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Resource Publication 95. Waterfowl Waterfowl harvest is the primary hunting activity associated with the estuaries. Annual harvest of waterfowl by Water Resource Regions was calculated from unpublished survey data obtained from the Office of Migratory Bird Management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (81). Ducks and geese are the primary species studied, with ducks being categor- ized as either divers or dabblers (Appendix 2). 88 A total of more than 583 thousand divers, about 2.3 million dabblers, and approximately 375 thousand geese were harvested annually between 1961 and 1970 in those counties included in the Water Resource Regions associated with estuarine areas (Table 3.6). These harvests represent 44 percent of the total U.S. harvest of divers, 27 percent of the dabblers, and 33 percent of the geese. Table 3.6. Distribution of Average Annual Harvest of Diving and Dabbling Ducks and Geese by Water Resource Regional. Region Total Divers2 Total DabblersZ Total Geese2 New England 45,273 99,302 5,236 Middle Atlantic 111,983 247,923 135,852 South Atlantic 49,062 114,851 12,648 East Gulf 30,784 42,947 902 Lower Mississippi 78,016 530,449 64,968 Texas Gulf 34,381 275,196 90,383 California-South Pacific 49,991 302,152 14,369 Co lumbia-North Pacific 69,175 458,270 21,477 Alaska 7,396 50,268 12,254 Great Lakes 107,062 156,300 16,650 Total (Regions) 583,123 2,277,658 374,739 Total (U.S.) 1,314,470 8,297,716 1,122,441 Source: Unpublished data, obtained from Chief, Waterfowl Harvest Surveys, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. lHarvest data for diving and dabbling ducks are for 1960-1970. Harvest in Alaska is for period 1966-1970. Harvest data for Geese are for 1962-1970. 2See Appendix 2 for list of species. The estuarine related diver harvest was greatest in the Middle Atlantic and Great Lakes regions. The dabbler harvest was largest in the Lower Mississippi and Columbia-North Pacific regions. The estuarine re- lated geese harvest was largest in the Middle Atlantic Region. The National Survey of Fishing and Hunting categorizes waterfowl hunters by geographic division and by flyway (85). There were ap- proximately 2.9 million waterfowl hunters in 1970 (Table 3.7). The number of hunters was over 400 thousand in each of three regions, East North Central, West South Central and Pacific. The largest per- cent of the population participating in hunting activities occurred in- the West South Central region. The total U.S. expenditure on waterfowl hunting was in excess of $244 million dollars or $84 per hunter (Table 3.8). The expenditures amounted to $9.73 per participant day. Per person expenditure in the Atlantic Flyway was $145 compared to only $58 in the Central Flyway. 89 Table 3.7. Number of Waterfowl Hunters by Census Geographic Division, 1970. Number of Hunters Percent Divisionl (1,000) Population New England 81 .9 Middle Atlantic 192 .7 East North Central 482 1.5 South Atlantic 313 1.3 East South Central 149 1.5 West South Central 492 3.4 Pacific 425 2.1_ Total 2,894 I.S' Source: National Survey of Fishing and Hunting, 1970, Resource Publ. 95,, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, p. 59. iDivisions: New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut. Middle Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. East North Central: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. South Atlantic: Delaware, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida. West South Central: Arkansasq LouisLana, Oklabouia, Texas. Pacific: Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii. Table 3.8. Waterfowl Hunting by Flyways, 1970. Expenditures Persons Total $ $ per Days Flyway (1,000) (1,000) Person (1,030) Atlantic 586 85,331 145 4,303 Mississippi 1,136 66,772 59 1091144 Central 616 359670 58 4,814 Pacific 556 56,678 102 5,8L2 Total 2,894 244,451 84 25,113 Source: National Survey of Fishing and Hunting, 1970, Resource Publ. 95, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, p. 35. Other Wildlife Harvest While waterfowl harvest is the primary hunting activity associated with estuarine areas, limited information exists on other types of wildlife harvest. It is estimated that the fur-trapping business in coastal Louisiana accounts for 30 percent of the total national fur. production. Principal harvested species in 1970 include 1.2 million muskrat pelts at a value of $1.5 million, 46 thousand mink pelts worth $231 thousand, 1 million -nutria pelts worth $3.8 million, and 104 thousand raccoon pelts worth $233 thousand (30). - Non-Consuaptive Activities Bird Watching and Photograph The 1970 survey of outdoor recreation (76) estimates the number of bird watchers and wildlife photographers for each census division area. Those areas associated with the estuarine zone had a total of 6.8 million birdwatchers in 1970 (Table 3.9). Approximately 4.4 percent of the population in these areas were bird watchers with a total of 411 million recreation days devoted to the activity. These areas had a total of 4.5 million wildlife or bird photographers in 1970 who used 37.8 million recreation days for this activity (Table 3.10). 90 1W Table 3.9. Bird Watchers (Persons 9 and Over) by Census Division, 19701. Number of Participants Percent of Recreation Days Days per Division2 (1,000) Population (1,000) Participant New England 584 6.3 51,250 87.8 Middle Atlantic 1,313 4.4 78,963 60.1 East North Central 1,829 5.4 105,899 57.9 South Atlantic 953 3.7 56,010 58.8 -W East South Central 399 3.1 11,802 34.8 West South Central 576 3.6 25,0-)7 43.6 Pacific 1,114 5.1 58,828 52.8 Total 6,813 411,371 Source: The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities, Preliminary Report, U.S. Department of Interior (February 1972). lIncludes totals for each area not limited to estuarine areas. 2For census geographic divisions, see footnote 1, Table 3.7. Table 3.10. Wildlife and Bird Photography by Census Division, 1970 1. Number of Recreation Division 2 Participants Percent of Days Days per 1,000) Population (1,000) Participant New England 295 3.2 3,313 11.2 Middle Atlantic 917 3.0 8,969 9.8 East North Central 968 2.8 6,983 7.2 South Atlantic 515 2.0 4,197 8.1 East South Central 161 1.5 1,289 8.0 West South Central 513 3.2 2,781 5.4 Pacific 918 4.2 8,382 9.1 Total 4,519 37,828 Source: The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities, Preliminary Report, U.S. Department of Interior (February 1972). lIncludes to tals for each area not limited to estuarine areas. 2For census geographic divisions, see footnote 1, Table 3.7. In the Southeast, bird watching households valued their activity at an average of $65.40 per day for a total value of:$7.4 billion per year (21). This same Southeastern area study indicates that total wild- life enjoyment including birds, animals, and fish for that region in 1970 was 174 million recreation days with a total value of $12 billion. Animal related recreation activities amounted to a total of 54 million recreation days valued at $6.4 billion. The average value per recreation day was estimated to be $80.30. Fish related recreation was 6 million days for a total value of $391 million. Average daily enjoyment was worth $65.99. Recreational Boating While a description and analysis of recreational boating (other than recreational fishing, water skiing, and swimming activities) is not one of our primary topics, a short discussion of these activities is needed if a meaningful discussion of use conflicts is to be accomplished. The dollar value of recreational boating is very difficult to calculate. However, proxy variables such as boat ownership and boat parking and mooring spaces provide a minimum value for these activities. 91 According to information by Ridgely (34), of the approximately 8 million privately owned recreational fishing boats in the U.S. as of October 1973, about I million were used in saltwater recreational fishing. Another study indicates there were a. total of 6.7 million recreational boats owned by residents of the estuarine areas (Table 3.11). Over 2.2 million of these were located in the Great Lakes Region and approximately 1.4 million in the Middle Atlantic Region. However, a larger percentage of the regional population were operators of recre- ational boats in the New England, Lower Mississippi, and Columbia- North Pacific regions. Table 3.11. Number and Use of Recreational Boating by Water Resource Regions, 19731. Recreational Boats Boats per operators of owned (Residency) 1,000 Recreational Z ReBional Region (1,000) Residents Boats Pop Lation New England 501 54.9 1,271,956 11.5 Middle Atlantic 1,356 37.6 2,991,265 8,1 South Atlantic 279 42.7 1,248,058 7.8 East Gulf 591 55.4 784,393 7.7 Lower Mississippi 386 102.5 581t779 15.5 Texas Gulf 368 31.2 622,260 5.3 California-South Pacific 583 62.9 1,364,838 6.6. Columbia-North Pacific 381 28.3 710,123 12.1 Alaska 19 ND ND ND Great' Lakes 2,237 46.5 4,309,379 8.8 .Rawa112 13 ND ND NO Caribbean2 19 ND ND ND Total 6,733 Source: Recreational Boating in the Continental U.S. in 1973: The Nationwide Boating Survey, or Rep. No. 745103, U. S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation (October 19@4). ITotal data for those counties contiguous to marine waters were included. 2Calculated from Numbered Boats by States, The Boating Business 1974, BoatingIndustry, (February 1975). ND, No data available. There were approximately 353 thousand boat parking spaces and almost 432 thousand slips and mooring spaces in-the U.S. in 1965 (Table 3.12). over 34 percent of the parking spaces and 36 percent of the slips and mooring spaces were located in the South. Table 3.12. Boating Installations by Regions, 1965. Marinas Boat Parking Spaces' Slips &-go-oring 3-p-ac'esl Region2 (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) Northeast 3.2 41.6 101.6 South 14.0 120.5 154.4 West 12.4 85.9 65.5 Total (U.S.) 35.6 352.8 431.9 Source: Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan, Draft report prepared by U.S. Department of Inte,rior, U.S. Senate Committee Print, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session (September 1974), p. 115. lIncludes both public and private spaces. 2Regions: Northeast: Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Vermont. South: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Uentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Flori da, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi. West: California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona. 92 CONFLICT AREAS Conflicts exist among many users and uses of the estuarine resources. In some regions allocation conflicts exist between commercial fishing fleets, between commercial and sport fishing, and commercial and sub- sistence fishing. Other conflicts involve recreational and economic development activities. Domestic versus Foreign Fleets Since World War II, fishing fleets from numerous nations have extended their fishing activities into fisheries off the coast of the U.S. Roedel (69, p.4) puts the concern into perspective: "We are dealing basically with allocation conflicts. Some of them involve different countries fishing the same resource. Some of them are between States in the contiguous fishery zones." According to Norris (69, p.13), the total catch in the Northwest Atlantic increased from 1.8 million metric tons in 1954 to 3.9 million in 1968. The increased catch is almost entirely due to increased fishing by European countries. The U.S. and Canadian catches in the same period increased from 1.2 million to only 1.5 million metric tons. He also states that codare now being fished at or beyond the level which will provide the maximum sustained yield. Some stocks of herring are now overfished. Total fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic cannot withstand further increases in fishing without being overexploited to the extent of reducing actual yields. Haddock and yellowtail flounder in New England have been affected greatly by increased foreign fishing. Biologists estimate that the early sixties catch was close to the maximum sustainable yield of 50,000 metric tons of haddock. For flounder, the U.S. catch alone has exceeded in some years the estimated maximum sustainable yield. McHugh (1020reports that fishery resources of the area from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras provided a domestic commercial catch in 1973 of about 1.6 billion pounds, for which American fishermen received about $119 million. They also provided 820 million pounds to fishing fleets of at least 10 other nations. The sport catch in the area was probably greater than 447 million pounds. Foreign fishing became a serious problem in 1966 when the Soviet Union, having taken a large harvest from the strong 1963 year class of haddock on Georges Bank, began to extend its operation to the south and west. Of 47 major species, 18 ate also being taken by foreign fleets. McHugh (102) summarizes the foreign catch as having had a measurable adverse effect on some fishery resources of interest to domestic commercial and recreational fishermen. However, a number of important fishery resources of the Middle Atlantic estuarine area are not subject to ol foreign fishing and stocks of these have declined in the last five years much more sharply than some which are taken by foreign fleets. The fact does not mean that foreign fishing is not having its effects, but it does 93 emphasize the complexities of the situation and the need to pay serious attention to domestic fishery management. According to Tillion (36) about 89 percent of the total living resources from the coast and seas bordering Alaska have been caught by foreign nationals of the Russian, Japanese and, to some extent, Korean high seas fishing fleets. In addition, the Japanese have in- vested heavily in Alaskan fisheries. One of the oldest, B&B FiSheries of'Kodiak, represents an investment of $2.5 million. The plant has been in operation since 1967 as a crab processor, but handles scallolDs, shrimp, halibut, salmon, and roe as well. Taiyo Fisheries of Japan operates in both Cordova and Kodiak with an investment of $2.5 million. The firm is principally interested in purchasing salmon, salmon roe, shrimp, crab, herring, and herring roe. Smaller companies are also present in Alaska. While the Japanese buyer on the one hand has helped the rise in the price of fish,, it does not make up in the eyes of the fishermen@ifor the loss in the number of fish. An addEtional impact to the Pacific fisheries is the East German and Polish vessels now oper- ating off the Washington and Oregon coasts. Unlike the fisheries off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaskan coasts, the fisheries of the Southeast Region have not suffered from massive foreign fishing. However, longline fishing in the Gulf by other countries has created some fears of future depletion of larger finfish in these waters (92). Commercial versus Sport Fishing According to Poff (114)many fish stocks in Lake Michigan are now either fully exploited or over-exploited. Conflicts between the two major segments utilizing the fishery and its fish stock, sport and commer- cial, are increasingly vocal. The chub fishery represents the heart of the commercial fishery. Since 1968, chub production in these waters has declined markedly, dropping from 6.2 million pounds in 1968 to 2.2 million pounds in 1972. Sport fishermen have fought strenuously for increased restriction on commercial fishing. Commercial fishermen have vigorously def ended their right to take f ish as they, have for years (44). Hopkins and Petrocelli (98) indicate that the greatest restrictions on commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico are those demanded by sport fishermen to maintain a monopoly for themselves. F'ressure from sport fishermen has resulted in closing Texas bays to conanercial netting for fish. There is even a current movement in Texas to outlaw the sale of such marine fishes as spotted trout and red drum because they are 11game fishes" (98, P-11). Subsistence versus Commercial Harvest A high priority conflict problem exists in Alaska aniong subsistence use and other users of estuarine resources. According to Watson and 94 Wentworth (87), high dependency on subsistence fish exists in the Bering coastal area but not along the Arctic coast. There is also a heavy dependency on marine mammals in the Bering coastal area. The major portion of the food consumed by the people and their dogs in the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta comes from wildlife resources; fuel comes from seal oil, clothing is made from hides of the marine and land mammals of the area. Seal hunting is of greatest importance in the villages of Scammon Bay, Hooper Bay, and Fanunak. The Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska (6, p.3) states that while there have been no restrictions placed on subsistence fishing, these fishermen want to participate in larger and larger commercial harvests. Thus, according to the Commission, fisheries regulations must include the subsistence fishermen. Table 3.13 provides a summary by region of identified present and near-term threats among the commercial, foreign, sport, and subsistence fishery acitvities. Threats from foreign fishing fleets is high in . the New England, Middle Atlantic, Columbia-North Pacific, and Alaskan regions. Threats from sport fishing are high in the Great Lakes and Texas Gulf regions. Threats from subsistence fishing are high in Alaska and in some instances in the Columbia-North Pacific regions. Threats may exist in other regions but were not identified in the available literature. Table 3.13. Present and Near-Term Threats to Fish or Wildlife Harvest by Water Resource Regions. Harvest (Quantity and Values) Region Sport vs. Commercial Domestic vs. Foreign Subsistence vs. Others New England H Middle Atlantic S H South Atlantic A East Gulf S Lower Mississippi Texas-Gulf H S California-South Pacific S Columbia-North Pacific H H Alaska H H Great Lakes H Hawaii S H, a high degree of conflict has been identified. S, some degree of conflict has been identified. A, an absence of conflict has been identified. Blanks indicate that inadequate information is available for making an evaluation. Recreational Activities In addition to the commercial-sport, domestic-foreign, and sub- sistence-commercial conflicts, locational conflicts occur among these 95 and other estuarine activities. Demands for mooring space along the shoreline can result in disputes with other potential shore users such as' estuarine-based industry, housing developments, commercial sea trans- portation facilities, nuclear and desalination facilities, and recrea- tional facilities. Fish processing and packaging plants have historically been considered objectionable waterfront users and have competed for space with most industrial and port-oriented activities. Locational conflicts and congestion problems develop at see. due to the occasional common space requirements of the fishing industry, off- shore mining and petroleum operations, the water transpo *rtation industry, and various recreational uses. The proximity of other estuarinE! activ- ities such as dredging and filling, industrial and domestic sewage disposal, pollution from mining and petroleum facilities, power plant facilities, and water diversion projects can have an adverse impact on commercial fishing and mariculture activities. Locational conflicts for recreational activities are greatest where the demand for more recreational facilities is greatest - in and near urban areas. Sportfishing and angling activities often conflict with other shoreline recreational activities such as swimming, boating, and surfing in addition to commercial fishing, harbor development, and industrial, commercial, and shipping interests. If water quality deteriorates, there may be a gradual replacement of highly desirable game fish by less desirable species. Extreme pollution renders the water totally uninhabitable. Dredging and filling operations are especially damaging to activities associated with sport fishing as well as wildlife. In a recent study (38), researchers estimate that with the continuing increase in population, leisure, income, and mobility, the demands for shoreline recreation should triple before the turn of the century. This increase is of major concern when we consider that our public coastal facilities are already filled to capacity while there is no roo-m left for expansion through acquisition and development. A recent review (56) of the state-of-the-art in knowledge of boating effects on the environment, effects of facility construction, and environmental and recreational carrying capacity indicates -that recreational boating activities in the Chesapeake Bay may potentially conflict with commercial shipping, commercial fishing, vehicular trans- portation, private shorefront property use, and other shore-oriented recreational pursuits such as swimming and fishing. Power recreational boating activities should be regulated in shellfish and fish spawning areas during critical stages. The effect of increased boat traffic.on vehicular traffic flows must be considered. Location of marinas and launching ramps on salt marshes and scenic shorelines proclaim a status of misuse and degradation of socially valuable resources. The impact of Alaska's current oil boom on waterfowl populations and wetlands habitats is slight at present (4). Perhaps the greatest threat to Alaska's waterfowl populations from North Slope oil is 96 associated with the terminus of this pipeline at Valdez on Prince William Sound. Here, increased petroleum shipping constitutes a definite hazard to breeding populations of the Dusky Canada Goose and other waterfowl, and to ducks, geese, and other waterbirds moving through this area during spring and fall migration periods. The consequences of activities in Cook Inlet are minimal and probably will continue to be of negligible importance to overall waterfowl populations. Summary of Conflicts As shown in Table 3.14, many estuarine environmental conditions have a high adverse effect on fishery harvest, wildlife harvest, and non- consumptive uses. Pollution conditions have a high adverse effect for each of these activities. Other impacts range to a very low adverse effect such as the impact of shoreline congestion on commercial fisheries. Likewise, turbidity and salinity conditions have a very low impact on non-consumptive uses but a high impact on commercial fisheries. Table 3.14. Relative Degree to Which Estuarine Environmental Conditions Adversely Affect .Estuarine Activity. Water Turbidity Topo- Shoreline Surface and graphical Ecological Aesthetic Activity Congestion Congestion Pollution Salinity Alteration Damage Damage Commercial Fisheries Finfish L M H H H VL Shellfish L M H H H H VL Aquaculture L M H H H VL Recreation Sportfishing L H H H M H M Boating M H H M VL L H Wildlife Harvest Ducks and Geese H VL H VL H L VL Animals H VL R VL H L VL Non-Consumptive Usesl Bird Watching H VL H VL M VL H Photography H M H VL 11 H H Nature Walks H VL H VL M VL H Source: Portions from National Estuary Study, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (January 1970), p. 94. H, high adverse effect. M, medium adverse effect. L, low adverse effect. VL, very low adverse effect. liudgments of authors. Table 3.15 provides an indication of the degree of compatibility among potential activites and commercial fisheries, recreation, and wildlife harvest. Some activities have a very low compatibility with other activities. Examples of this situation include aquaculture and channels, and wildlife harvest and urbanization activities. Nevertheless, a high degree of compatibility exists for many users of the estuarine resources. 97 Table 3.15. Degree of Compatibility Among Estuarine Uses. Introduced Commercial Fisheries Recreation Wildlife Activity Finfish Shellfish Aquaculture Sport Fishing Boating HErvestl Transportation Vessels H H L H H H Channels H M VL H H L Port Facility H H H H H M Commercial Fishing Finfish L L H Shellfish L M M Aquaculture L M M Extractive Petroleum M H H H H H Solution Mining H H H H H H Bottom Mining H M M H H H Water Utilization Power Facility H H H H H L Desalination H H H H H M Sewage Disposal H H H H H L Urbanization Housing H H H H H VL Commerce-Industry H H H H H VL Highway (etc.) H H H H H VL Recreation Sportfishing L M M M H Swimming L M L L M M Boating L M M M M Miscellaneous M M M M H M Source: Portions from National Estuary Study, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (January 1970), p. 94. H, high compatibility M, medium compatibility L, low compatibility VL, very low compatibility IJudgment of authors. FUTURE HARVEST PROJECTIONS Relatively little information has been published or otherwise made available relative to future regional demand for fish (a notable exception is Bell (67)) and wildlife harvest. Even less information is available concerning the ability of the marine related resources to meet present or increased demands. Demand for Fisheries Products Implementation of management systems consistent with optimum yield, importation of fish products, and the 200-mile limit legislation will have an appreciable but as yet unknown impact on the ability of the estuarine systems to meet future demands. Nevertheless, one can use projected increases in population, per capita income, and present per capita consumption to project future demands on marine resources and uses. In most cases, per capita constimption will also depend on substituta- bility of other competing products. 98 Per Capita Consumption Present per capita consumption of fish products varies appreciably by category and by region. As shown in Table 3.16, Nash found per capita consumption of specialty items to be lowest in the East North Central, South Atlantic and East South Central regions (68). New England and the Middle Atlantic regions had the highest per capita W, consumption of these items. Per capita consumption of shellfish was much higher in the Northeast Region than in other regions. Per capita consumption of finfish was substantially higher in the South Central regions which include the Gulf areas. Consumption of canned fish was highest in the New England and South Central regions. Table 3.16. Per Capita Consumption of Selected Species by Regions and Per Capita Income, February 1969 - January 1970. Regioni Specialty Items7 -Shellfish? _Finfish3 Canned Fish Pounds per Capita New England 1.97 4.16 5.80 17.60 Middle Atlantic 1.96 2.03 4.64 14.29 East North Central 1.18 1.19 3.51 10.04 South Atlantic 1.36 2.20 5.38 14.22 East South Central 1.06 1.91 7.49 17.24 West South Central 1.78 1.63 8.63 16.56 Pacific 1.89 1.71 4.43 13.96 Per Capita Income $ Under 1,000 .71 .82 4.16 10.97 1,000-1,999 1.28 1.78 4.38 12.57 2,000-2,499 1.25 .98 2.82 9.23 2,500-2,999 1.18 2.46 4.72 14.02 3,000-3,499 1.67 1.95 4.79 13.02 3,500-over 1.71 2.03 3.89 12.66 Source: A Survey of Fish Purchases by Socio-Economic Characteristics, Working Paper No. 50, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U. S. Department of Commerce (April 1970). 1For census geographic divisions, see footnote 1, Table 3.7. 21ncludes tuna pie, clam chowder, oyster stew, TV dinners, smoked fish, others. 31ncludes both fresh and frozen. The Sport Fishing Institute (58, p.7) estimates that edible weight of saltwater fishes taken by anglers is equivalent to approximately one-fourth the amount of edible fish reported entering the national diet through all channels in 1973. This consumption is in addition to the re- ported per capita consumption of 12.6 pounds of seafood in 1973. Con- sumption consisted of edible fish (fresh, frozen, canned, or cured) that entered usual commercial channels from all sources, and represents about 2.6 billion pounds of fish. As shown in Table 3.16, per capita consumption of specialty items generally increased at higher levels of per capita income. Per capita consumption doubles between a per capita income level of $1,000 and over $3,500. Likewise, per capita consumption of shellfish generally in- creases at the higher level of per capita income. A trend in per capita consumption of finfish is not evident in the available data. There is a slight increase in consumption of canned fish at higher levels of income. 99 While the data in Table 3.16 do not indicate a clear trend in per capita consumption as a result of different levels of per capita income, the income elasticity of some estuarine species indicates a significant increase in per capita consumption with an increase in income. The income elasticity for lobster is reported to be 2.1, shrimp 1.8, fresh and frozen salmon 1.6, crab 1.3, and groundfish 1.2 (84, p.19). For example, as income increases by one-percent, consumption of lobster will increase by 2.1 percent. Negative elasticities have been reported for oyster, salmon, and halibut (10). Information on trends in per capita consumption is inadequate for making predictions on future consumption of fish products.. However, if we assume that per capita consumption remains constant, the fact that population is projected to increase for each region will result in an increase in total consumption of fishery products. Also, projected changes in relative per capita income will have an impact on P consumption. Population and Income Projections 0' Population and income projections for 1985 and 2000 by counties in Water Resource Council Regions which are adjacent to estuarine and nearshore systems were provided by WRC primarily for use in the 1975 assessment(108). Increases in both popula 'tion and per capita income result in growing demands for commercial,and recreational use of coastal zone resources and at the same time often intensify problems of pollution and quality degradation. According to Spangler, "that almost half of the total personal income of the United States is forecast to accrue to 76 coastal metropolitan areas by 1980 is of considerable importance in assessing the effect upon limited resources of a fairly concentrated segment of the U.S. population in the coastal zone" (35). The total population for the estuarine area counties for 1975 is estimated to be 153 million or 71.8 percent of the 213 million U. S. totals. The percentage change of estuarine area population is projected to increase by 10.69 percent by 1985 and 13.54 percent between 1985 and 2000 compared to the U.S. increase of 9.93 percent and. 12.50 percent, respectively (Appendix 3). A large degree of variability exists among regional increases in population. The estimated increase in population between 1975-1985 for the Columbia-North Pacific Region is only 4.30 percent compared to 16.51for the South Atlantic. and 1-7.70 percent for Alaska (Table 3.17). The population increases betweE@n 1985-2000 are a'low of 5.55 percent for the Lower Mississippi compared to 19.87 for the South Atlantic and 21.33 percent for Alaska. Thus, exclUding Alaska, available data indicate that the fastest growing estuarine area is the South Atlantic Region which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the eastern part of Florida. 100 Table 3.17. Projected Change in Population and Income for Central Case by Water Resource Regions. Percent Change in Population Change in Relative Per Capita Incomel Region 1975-1985 1985-2000 1975-1985 1985-2000 New England 8.96 12.49 - - Middle Atlantic 10.76 13.83 -.01 -.02 South Atlantic 16.51 19.87 .02 .02 East Gulf 13.81 15.84 .02 .02 Lower Mississippi 5.43 5.55 .01 .03 Texas-Gulf 12.63 15.62 - .01 California-South Pacific 12.02 14.30 -.02 -.02 Columbia-North Pacific 4.30 8.56 .02 .01 Alaska 17.70 21.33 -04 -.03 Great Lakes 8.11 10.64 - -.01 Hawaii 15.72 19.16 - .05 -.03 U. S. 9.93 12.50 - - Source: See Appendices 3 and 4. Calculated from "Series E" Projections and Historical Data, Population, Personal Income and Earnings, Aggregated Subareas, U. S. Water Resources Council (June 1974). These values are based on region per capita income relative to the U. S. per capita income. For example, per capita income for the U. S. in 1975 is $4,070 and in 1985 is projected to be $5,429. For the South Atlantic Region it is $3,437 and $4,640 respectively or 3,437 divided by 4,070 equals 0.84 and 4,640 divided by 5,429 equals 0.86. This represents an increase in relative per capita income of (0.86-0.84) 0.02 points. Coastal regions differ widely in per capita personal income and per capita income relative to the U.S. average (Appendix 4). Geo- graphic distinction was more noticeable with the South Atlantic-East Gulf and Lower Mississippi regions appreciably lower than the 1975 U.S. average of $4,070 per capita income. The relative position of these areas is projected to be the same in year 2000. Nevertheless, the relative per capita income (as a percentage of U.S. per capita income) for the Lower Mississippi is projected to increase from .77 to .81 and for the South Atlantic-East Gulf from .84 to .88 (Table 3.17). The Middle Atlantic, California-South Pacific, Alaska, and Hawaii regions are projected to have a decrease in relative per capita income. Projected Increases in Consumption Based on alternative futures for the Central Case, the largest projected increase in population between 1975, 1985, and 2000 will occur in Alaska with a'total increase of 39 percent for the two periods while relative per capita income will decrease by .07 points - a significant decrease in relative per capita income. Based on an assumption of constant per capita consumption, the increase in consumption of fishery products due to increases in population will be offset to some degree by a decrease in relative per capita income. The ability of the estuarine system to support a 30 percent increase in consumption will depend on several variables including management plans. Both the South Atlantic and East Gulf regions will experience a significant increase in fish/shellfish consumption. The South Atlantic Region has a projected increase in population of 36.28 percent for the 1975-1985 and 1985-2000 periods. This region is projected to receive 101 an increase of .04 points in relative per capita income. The East Gulf Region will experience an increase in population of 29.65 percent and .04 points in relative per ca:pita income. Both of these- regions .have a low consumption of speciality items but high consumption of finfish and canned,fish. The positive change in per capita income will reinforce the increased consumption (nearly 40 percent) resulting from population increases. The smallest gains in population are projected for the Lower Mississippi and Columbia-North Pacific regions. However, both regions will experience significant increases in relative per capita income. The Columbia-North Pacific Region has a relatively high per capita consumption of all seafood products particularly specialty items. The Lower Mississippi Region has comparatively high per capita consumption of both finfish and canned fish. Even with the low projections for popula- tion increases, the high per capita consumptions and increases in per capita income should result in an increase in consumption of more than 10 percent. The alternative futures based on increases in population and changes in income between 1975-1985 and 1985-2000 indicate that the Alaska, Hawaii, South Atlantic, and East Gulf regions are the regions which will ex- perience the greatest potential future impact. The Lower Mississippi and Columbia-North Pacific regions will experience the smallest potential future impact. Supply of Fishery Products An important factor in projecting the consumption of fish products is a knowledge of optimal yields of various species for each estuarine region. Potential future supply of the fish species will have a significant impact on price and thus a significant impact on consump- tion. A second factor is the substitutability of imported. fish prod- ucts. Policy decisions must balance future potential harvest with future yield of species by estuarine systems. Traditional marine fisheries .science has used the concept of maximum-sustained yield (VISY) management of fish populations. A U.S. Senate Committee reported: "The maximum sustainable yield is achieved when the annual catch is at the highest level (in terms of number or weight of fish caught) which can be sustained without harming the reproductive ability of the stock. However, many experts believe that use of the maximum sustainable biological yield objective in fisheries management may lead to substantial economic waste and may ignore important environmental relationships between stocks from which yield cannot be maximized simultaneously. It seems more desirable therefore to adopt the objectiVE'.S of optimum yield defined to include biological, economic, and environmental factors as the,guideline for fishery management in an extended fishery zone and over anadromous species of fish" (65, p.22). 102 increases in fishing effort,-with accompanying conflicts of interest, have led to depletion of a number of important U.S. fisheries stocks, either as a whole or in particular areas. As shown in Appendix 5, the National Marine Fisheries Service (74) provides a present estimate of the status of major U.S. stocks. The report shows that herring, mackerel, and shrimp, among others, have been overfished. Crab, lobster, menhaden, and shrimp are now being fully utilized. A large number of species is listed as having a potential for increased catch. The National Marine Fisheries Service (71,74) has provided an es- timate of MSY for selected species (Table 3.18) and the demand and supply of market classes between 1973 and 1985 (Table 3.19). Available data on recreational demand were included. Data are based on present estimates and are not considered to be exact. Forecasts are provided for consumption of edible fisheries products in eleven market classes in the absence of any changes in present trends and circumstances. The potential increase by market classes in Table 3.19 indicates the general potential of U. S. fisheries to contribute to our future needs. we Table 3.18. Projected Maximum Sustainable Yield for Selected Species by Ocean Areas. MSY Species Ocean Area (1,000 tons) Shrimp Northwest 30 Atlantic West Central 177 North Pac ific 144 Blue Crab Atlantic West Central. 89 Oysters Atlantic 363,889 Pacific 42,889 Salmon Chinook Pacific 25 Chum Pacific 39 Cohn Pacific 39 Pink Pacific III Sockeye Pacific 66 Atlantic Atlantic 13.3 Trout Atlantic 19.4 Menhaden Atlantic 444-555 Gulf of Mexico 455 Dungeness Crab North Pacific 50 King Crab North Pacific 100 Source: Current Fisheries Statistics Nos. 5934, 6129, 6132, 6131 and 6273, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA (1973-74). 00 103 Table 3.19. Demand and Supply of Fishery Products by Market Class between 1973 and 1985 1. Demand U. S. Supply Market T-- ... d Need by 1985 S. 1973 Potential Class Commercial Recreational Total Landings MSY Increase Groundfish 1,079 399 1,418 419 7,502 7,083 Halibut 39 NO 39 24 62 38 Tuna 341 32 373 515 2,902 2,387 Salmon 66 24 90 213 3032 902 Scallop 13 ND 13 9 36 27 Shrimp 245 NO 245 372 599 227 Lobster 42 ND 42 41 442 32 Crabs 10 ND 10 235 515 280 Clams 40 NO 40 106 2552 1492 Oysters 20 ND 20 49 1372 882 Source: National Fisheries Plan: Review Paper on issues and Options, National Mar:Fne - Fisheries Service, NOAA (April 1975), p. 21. lIn millions of pounds, round weight, except for univalve and bivalve mollusks whi-h are weight of meats. 21ncludes increased production from aquaculture. ND, No data available. As shown in Table 3.19, ample resources of gro 'undfish exist to supply future U.S. increases and possibly displace some present import.,;. The k@stimated supply increase in salmon by 1985 is 90 million pounds. With adequate supplies, it is probable that U.S. consumption would increase well above the predicted amounts. Scallop resources preSE!ntly available to U.S. fishermen are sufficient to provide for projected increases if distribution and abundance of the resource can be monitored. According to the NMFS report (74), with an increase in demand of 245 million pounds, the unfished shrimp resources off the U.S., amount to 227 million pounds, but much of this is the smaller, lower valued shrimp that would not replace the demand for larger shrimp. Although aquaculture offers a prospect for increased shrimp, imports of shrimp will need to be increased. The potential for increases in supply of lobster is small. Inshore lobster resources are probably being over-exploited. Offshore 'Lobster stocks have declined. Only small increases in imports are likely. The estimated increase needed by 1985 is 42 million pounds but: potential increase in supply is projected to be only 3 million pounds (Table 3.19). Adequate potential increases in U.S. supply exist to meet the expected increase in demand for crabs, clams,,and oysters. High cost is now a limiting factor in the harvest of an estimated 280 million pounds of crabs that are available but currently not being harvested. Traditionally harvested stocks of clams are fully utilized. However, U.S. supplies exist to meet future needs if logistics problems in Alaska and if pollution problems in Alaska and the Atlantic coast can be controlled. A comparison of MSY and current landings of each species for each region is not presently available. However, published information does indicate that stocks of certain species such as cod, haddock, yellowtail. flounder and shrimp are being over-exploited in the Northeast waters (69, 85, 102). Fish stocks, particularly chub, are being over-exploited in the Great Lakes (114). Depletion of larger finfish has created problems in the Gulf (92). 104 A recent legislative report indicates that Alaska's unmanaged commercial fishing for red, pink, chum, coho, and king salmon has im- paired or threatened to impair the harvest of these Alaskan fishery re- sources (8). Other studies have attempted to measure future yield of certain species in selected areas. A,-cording to a report by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (47), harvest of lobster is estimated to remain relatively static in the next decade. The advent of limited entry and increased size limits could result in modest but valuable in- creases in harvest in the 1980-1990 period. Harvest of shrimp in New Hampshire is expected to decrease slightly during the next decade either due to regulations or from over-exploitation. The future of the New Hampshire gill net fishery depends a great deal on the establishment of a 200 mile fisheries zone along the Atlantic coast. According to the report (47), haddock have been eliminated by foreign fishing fleets. Yellowtail, herring, cod, and mackerel fisheries are endangered. Establishment of a 200 mile fisheries zone within the next year or two may save the cod, the mainstay of the gill net fishery. The demand for commercial fishing is expected to almost double by 2020 in the Pacific Northwest River Basin (105). Commercial harvest of anadromous and marine fish and shellfish is projected to increase to about 270 million pounds by 1980, 357 million by 2000. Recreation and Hunting Demands Kalter (99) provides a summary of projected increases in recreational activities including fishing and nature walks between 1972 and 1978 for those Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) areas which are adjacent to the national estuarine zone. With a projected increase of 8.1 percent in population for these areas, an increase is expected in activity days of 9.8 percent for recreational fishing, 17 percent for boating (other than water skiing and sailing), and 14 percent for nature walks (Table 3.20). According to Kalter's analysis, the recreational activity in greatest demand is swimming (other than pools) followed by fishing, nature walks, boating (other than skiing and sailing), and water skiing. On a regional basis, boating ranks ahead of nature walks in the South Atlantic, East South Central, and West South Central areas. The greatest amount of de- mand is for fishing in the Pacific and South Atlantic areas. 105 Table 3.20. Summer of 1972 and Percentage Increase for 1978 In Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities in Business Economic Areas (BEA) Adjacent to National Estuarine Zone. Lish@@ Boating Nature Walks % increase 1972 Act- % In- 1972 Act- % In- 1972 Act- % In- in Population ivity Days crease ivity Days crease ivity Days crease BEA Areal 1972-1978 (1,000) 1978 (1,)00) 1978 (1,000) 1978 New England 9.0 9,752 11.5 5,@,;l is 6,461 is Middle Atlantic 8.5 18,989 11.5 10,688 23 13,374 18 South Atlantic 7.9 32,873 9.4 12,664 17 9,976 14 East South Central 8.0 1,266 9.0 432 16 347 13 West South Central 6.1 14,200 7.4 5,106 15 4,195 12 Pacific 9.7 32,916 11.6 14,603 18 28,054 14 Total or Average (U.S.) 8.1 109,995 9.8 49,045 17 62,409 14 Source: Recreational Activities in the Nation's Estuarine Zone, by Robert J. Kalter in Estuarine Pollution: A National Assessment, U. S. Environmental Protection Tg.nry, Washington, D. C. (1975). 'BEA, Business Economic Areas: New England: Bangor, Portland, Boston, Hartford. Middle Atlantic: New York, Philadelphia. South Atlantic: Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Norfolk, Raleigh, Wilmington, Florence, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Tallahassee, Pensacola. East South Central: Mobile. West South Central: New Orleans, Lake Charles, Beaumont, Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, McAllen. Pacific: Seattle, Portland, Eugene, San Diego, Los Angeles, Eureka, San Francisco. The outdoor recreation activities currently in greatest demand are not necessarily those which are expected to grow the fastest in the future. For the whole U.S. boating is expected to increase fastest be- tween 1972 and 1978 at a rate of 17 percent. In addition to the high increase in boating demand in each area, the greatest increase in these activities for each estuarine zone is water skiing in the Middle Atlantic area with an increase of 25 percent. The data indicate that many of the areas which show the greatest levels of demand are also the areas which show some of the highest pro- jected increases in demand between 1972 and 1978. Even when a rapid rate of growth in demand is associated with lower initial levels of demand, the growth rate may be enough to create significant strains on the ability of the estuarine resources to absorb'the increases. The greatest strain will be on boating (other than skiing) resources in estuarine zones. Kalter's projections were limited to the period 1972-1978 and were estimated only for selected metropolitan areas within each area. If we assume current consumptive patterns will continue we can project future con- sumption for the Central Case in 1985 and 2000. Based on population projections, the largest increases will occur in the South Atlantic Region. This area currently has the highest number of saltwater anglers and fishing activity days. The population increase is expected to be approximately 40 percent between 1975 and 2000. Based on population projections for the period between 1975-1985 and 1985-2000, activity days in sport fishing and other recreational activities are expected to increase by as much as 40 percent in the South Atlantic, Alaska, and Hawaii regions. The increase should be over 20 percent for the New England, Middle Atlantic, East Gulf, Texas-Gulf, 106 and California-South Pacific regions. The increase in demand for recrea- tional activity days should be over 10 percent for the Great Lakes, Lower Mississippi, and Columbia-North Pacific regions. As workers acquire more leisure time the percentage of time allocated to recreational activities is also expected to increase. Thus, the increase in demand could be much greater than the increase in population. "Although there is a significant lack of available data upon which to formulate the future outlook of estuarine-associated hunting it appears that the relative importance of this activity will decline appreciably in the future, particularly as access and availability of suitable sites near populated areas decline" (84, p.36). The above statement was made in the 1970 estuarine study and appears to accurately portray the current situation. A 1974 administrative report of the.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (86) shows duck stamp sales in 1973 were ap- proximately 11 percent lower than in 1972. U.S. waterfowl hunters 'spent 12 percent fewer days hunting and bagged 20 percent fewer ducks, 36 percent fewer coots but 25 percent more geese than in 1972. The Department of the Interior (78) indicates that birdwatching participants will increase from 9 million in 1965 to 13 million in 1980 and to 19 million in 2000. The estimate of increase in bird and wildlife photography is from 3 million in 1965 to 5 million in 1980 and to 8 million in 2000. Selected studies have estimated increases in recreation for specific estuarine areas. In a study of the recreational needs for the Chesapeake Bay (77 p.17), the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation estimates that demand for boating activity day per year will increase by 36 percent between 1970 and 1980 and by 32 percent between 1980 and 2000. The author estimates that boating and sailing acreage is sufficient to maintain a surplus of supply but a shortage will exist in boat mooring and slips. Sportfishing and hunting demand in the Pacific Northwest River Basins 4s expected to increase 154 percent and 112 percent, respectively, by 2020. Sportfi.shing needs are projected to increase from about 21 million angler days in 1970 to about 32 million per year by 1980, 45 million by 2000. This includes recreational use of anadromous, resident, marine, and shellfish species (105). In New Hampshire, the number of saltwater sportf ishing days can be expected to exceed 250,000, valued at over $5 million in the 1975-1980 period. The man days of saltwater sport fishing can be expected to increase to 350,000 annually at a value of over $7 million during the period 1980-1990. Based on analyses by Clark (95) the number of people sport fishing has increased 50 percent since 1960, while the yearly catch of each fisher- man has declined somewhat. As number of anglers increased from 6.2 million to 9.4, the yearly average catch dropped from 102 fish to 97 fish per angler. 107 Recreation Water Supply A substantial portion of the water area available for recreation is encompassed by the estuarine zone. Yet, 59 percent of the area remains underdeveloped and over 70 percent resides in private ownership. About 25 @ercent of the area is used for recreation (99, P-1). Current capacity and future facility needs cannot be identified from available data. More importantly, it is obvious that recreational sites other than those located in estuary zones could serve as supply sources for this demand (99,.p.25). Capacity can obviously vary for a given site due to intensity of use. Two other factors, quality of recreation experience offered and activity mix at the site, are important to a determi- nation of supply. The existence of complementary and competitive activities can affect the overall capacity level at a site. 77 108 CHAPTER 4 IMPACTS OF PREDICTED WATER RESOURCE UTILIZATION J. E. Warinner, M. P. Lynch INTRODUCTION A major aim of the 1975 Water Resourcos Assessment is to predict the impact of projected water uses for the years 1985 and 2000. In this chapter, we have attempted to predict the impact of water use and supply projections on estuarine and nearshore environments. For this purpose, the water use and supply projections for the years 1975, 1985, and 2000 were obtained from the U. S. Water Resources Council for all of the Aggregated Subareas (ASA) which terminate in estuaries or coastal areas including the Great Lakes. The following assumptions were made in de- veloping the Central Case future condition set of water-related require- ments by the Water Resources Council (WRC). 1. Population and Economic Activity. As contained in the OBERS "E" Series Report (108). 2. Agricultural and Forestry Production. As contained in the OBERS "E" Series Report (108). 3. Water Quality. The 1983 Water Quality Goals will be achieved by 1985. 4. Water Use. Unit withdrawal and consumptive use rates will change from the 1975 rates as a result of achieving the 1983 Water Quality Goals by 1985. 5. Electric Power. Per capita electric power consumption will con- tinue along current trends. 6. Flood Damages. The 1975 level of flood plain regulation will remain constant into the future. 7. Navigation. Current trends in the relative magnitude of waterway shipments to total shipments will continue into the future. 8. Fish and Wildlife. Current trends in per capita demand for angler and water related hunter days will continue into the future. 9. Recreation. Current trends in per capita demand for water related recreation will continue into the future. 10. Energy. Import of minerals will continue at a somewhat reduced rate of growth. Although originally charged with only dealing with projections for .Water Resource Regions, it quickly became evident that regional summaries were not sensitive to specific problem areas, so a decision was made to deal with the use and supply data aggregated at the ASA level. 109 DEMAND/SUPPLY Our approach to this analysis was based on assessing the effects of changing demands for fresh water on the freshwater discharge into the es- tuaries. Figure 4.1 indicates the projected consumptive demand for fresh water as a percent of the projected supply for selected ASA's along the coastal United States. Only those ASA's in which the demand is greater than five percent of the supply are shown. Supply flows are probabilistic in nature and are expr'essed as flow at a given percent annual probability. For example, freshwater supply at the 50 percent exceedance le-tj,el is that amount of fresh water which can be assured to users during 50 out of 100 years; in the remaining years, lesser amounts are availablE!. The figure graphically detect:i those areas where problems in water supply and demand are critical and the changes expected over the next 25 years. These in- clude Southern Florida, the Texas-Gulf coast, the Central and Southern California coast. The Southern Lake Michigan ASA is a special case where use will exceed land drainage, but the Lake itself is a vast supply of fresh water. The Virgin Islands have not had an adequate natural supply of fresh water for some time, and the demand on St. Thomas and St. Johns is met by barging water from Puerto Rico and desalination in St. Thomas. The bays of the Virgin Islands are not true estuaries as the surface runoff is very intermittent, occurring mostly during August, September, and October in periods of tropical storms. A number of embayments of the Hawaiian Islands also do not qualify as estuaries as they do not bave.sufficient freshwater input but can be significantly affected by man@s activities. PATTERNS OF WATER USE Water supplies to the estuaries are generally affected by increasing consumption rather than a change in the water sources themselves, although the temporal flow of water may be altered through the use of flow control dams and a few river basin diversions. In order to identify the signifi- cant changes in water use, Tables 4.1 and 4.2 were constructed. These tables indicate the percent changes in consumptive water use by categories using 1975 use as a base. Since a large percentage change does not necessarily indicate a large consumptive use, another factor, the percentage that category is of the total consumptive use for the ASA, is also shown. Those uses which represent greater than 25 percent of the total consumptive use and those representing greater than 25 percent increase in demand over 1975 levels are highlighted. . It is evident immediately that manufacturing will require the greatest increase in consumptive water use by 1985. These demands will be concen- trated in the Middle Atlantic (Delaware and Potomac), the Great Lakes, and the Texas-Gulf coast. Water for condenser cooling purpoSE!S in steam electric generation will be in demand in North Carolina by 1985. Other increasing demands will be for domestic water supplies in Hawaii and crop irrigation in Florida, Texas, and Lower California. By the year 2000, 110 Figure 4.1. Water Demand as a Percent of Supply Region ASA Location 1975 1985 2000 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 Middle Atlantic 203 Delaware 206 Potomac South Atlantic 302 Pee Dee-Santee 304 St. Johns-Suwannee 305 South Florida Texas-Gulf 1201 Sabine-Neches 1202 Trinity 1203 Brazos 1204 Colorado-1.1ano 1205 Guadalupe, etc . Rio Grande 1305 Rio Grande California 1806 South Coastal 1805 Central Coastal @2= 1804 San Francisco Bay 1801 North Coastal 90 Great Lakes 403 South Lake Michi7an 2 406 St. Clair-Detroit Hawaii 2002 Maui-Molokai 2003 Honolulu 2004 Kauai-Nihau Caribbean 2101 Puerto Rico 2102 Virgin Islands _j Key: Percentage based on 50% exceedance flow Percentage based on 95% exceedance flow IData do not distinguish between coastal area and Colorado Desert drainage. Includes import of 4651.5 MCD (3/4 of supply). 2Demand includes export of 982.1 MGD. Table 4.1. Consumptive Water Use by Categories for 1985.- Percent Change from 1975 and Percent of Total Requirement. Year 1985 Consumptive Use Aggregated Manu- Crop Live@ Steam National Area Subarea Location Domestic facturinz Minerals rrigation Stock Electric Forests Total 10112 1: @: @: Middle Atlantic 203 Delaware 30 36/18 192/9 206 Potomac 26/17 :(:1253148'ilt' 40/7 50/6 -3313: 4 . 1. 1: 1: 1: 1: 1 -- 1. 1., . ......... South Atlantic 302 Pee Dee-Santee-Edisto 19/12 28/1 29/5 21/ 1 :3, -JA 45 304 St. Johns to Suwannee 24/10 204/10 231<1 19/75 10/1 117/2 28 305 Southern Florida 32/6 127/4 32/3 11/85 356/2 16 Great Lakes 402 Northwestern Lake Michigan :,12,43/34'' 55/22 94/16 44/<l 84 _T4 403 Southern Lake Michigan 9/18 56,11 178/15 Texas-Gulf 1201 Sabine-Neches 16/4 3 5 -7/9 ... '-17/39: 10/3 550/6 15 .................... 1202 Trinity 20/8 1,1,132 35Yi 16/6 :*-19/43::: 5/2 47/2 15 1203 Brazos 34/<l 4/<l /,,2'0 /,9 57 421/1 21 .......... 1204 Colorado-Llano 10/1 57/<1 7/9 . -14/84 ... 6/<l 266/1 -10 .......... 1205 Guadalupe-San Antonio-Nueces-Frio 9/6 :-8/62: 7/4 35/1 -20 California- 1804 San Francisco Bay 14/23 118/10 1'/64 -0.2 ",Y/ South Pacific 1805 Central Coastal 12/4 20/2 6 1806 South Coastal-Colorado Desert 12/11 36/1 20/<l 250/<l 8 Hawaii 2002 Maui-Molokai-Lanai-Kahoolawe 28/2 '-5/89: 3 2003 Oahu-Honolulu 13 25 142/11 .6/62 ... 5 .......... Caribbean 2101 Puerto Rico 23/1 -_-Q96:_ 4/2 3 % increase in consumptive use over 1975 use. % this use is of total consumptive use. increased demand where use is >k total requirement. increased demand where use is >k total requirement and increase >k. decreased demand since 1975. E 8 3 5 OF d1k A-L Table 4.2. Consumptive Water Use by Categories for 2000. Percent Change from 1975 and Percent of Total Requirement. Year 2000 Consumptive Use Aggregated Manu- Crop Live- Steam National Area Subarea Location Domestic facturing Minerals Irrigation Stock Electric Forests Total :: i::: i;!::; @: @; i 1;: Middle Atlantic 203 Delaware 26/9 ::::::: 63@,46@!:: 77/18 662/17 38 206 Potomac 66/8 ::,i,980/66 08/4 111/4 755/14 94/<l 343 South Atlantic 302 Pee Dee-Santee-Edisto 46/7 1:1145/461:1:, 76/1 61/3 47/<l 1: 1958/40 1: 1 1, 94/<l 1995 F !I! i!O Oi I i I P, I I I y".1 304 St. Johns to Suwannee 571/17 69/<l /1 208/2 59 30 305 Southern Florida 83/7 477/8 84/3 22/78 1056/3 39 Great Lakes 402 Northwestern Lake Michigan .83/ 3..:.: 116/15 400/20 92/<l 285 403 403 Southern Lake Michigan 23/18 0 119/1 :5@4 39 .................. .,T 3612 'i'i262/41',Y,: 13/4:::: 31 19::: 31/2 Texas-Gulf 1201 Sabine-Neches 86/<l 98 1202 Trinity 49/6 35/5 - --33/23 24/1 361/5 80 F@ 1203 Brazos 86/<l 10/<l -9/93- - 794/2 -6 1204 Colorado-Llano 23/1 264/<l 16/11 ::-31/72:: 25/<l 1725/9 -17 ........... ....... V.. 1205 Guadalupe-San Antonio-Nueces-Frio 20/7 :::-45/19: -35/54: 27/5 14/1 -30 .......... California- 1804 San Francisco Bay 306/17 ... -1/56- - -1 .......... South Pacific ., 11 1 1 1805 Central Coastal 31/4 7o/ 3 11 1806 South Coa sta 1- Colorado Desert 29/13 104/2 42/<1 543/1 10 .......... Hawaii 2002 Maui-Malokai-Lanai-Kaboolawe 71/2 16 2003 02hu-Banolulu @2' 6.; 442/21 .:-12/51...... 20 Caribbean 2101 Puerto Rico 53/2 ::-_45 93 ... 83/4 % increase in consumptive use over 1975 use. % this use is of total consumptive use. increased demand where use is >k total requirement. increased demand where use is >@c total requirement and increase >k. decreased demmd since 1975. manufacturing and the electric generating industry will have the greatest increase in water demands. The demand for manufacturing will be felt in the Delaware-Potomac areas, North Carolina, Lake Michigan, and th-e Texas- Gulf coastal area. Increasing demands for cooling water will be found in North Carolina, Lake Michigan, and the Texas coast. Demands for irrigation water will continue to be felt in Florida and central and southern Cali- fornia. Increased demands for domestic water supplies will be in the San Francisco Bay area and Honolula, and the demands of the Virgin Islands will continue to be met by desalination and barging water @from Puerto Rico. SEASONAL AND ANNUAL FRESHWATER OUTFLOWS The demand/supply data thus far presented are based on annual average flows which do not necessarily reflect the extreme low flow conditions. Water discharges into the estuaries fluctuate widely under natural con- ditions, both seasonally and annually as can be seen in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Low flows are generally found in the summdr and fall months except in Florida where the lowest flows are during winter and spring. In the Potomac River, for example, there is a 50 percent chance that the average flow in Septem- ber will be less than 2,516 MGD which is less than 30 percent of the annual mean discharge. Furthermore, there is a 5 percent chance that the discharge in August will be less than 1,161 MGD or 13 percent of the average annual discharge from the Potomac. In the Southern Florida ASA, even more extreme seasonal fluctuation is evident. Here, there is a 50 percent chance that the discharge in April will be less than 103 MGD which is only 14 percent of the'mean annual dis- charge rate of 7,420 MGD. Likewise, there is a 5 percent chance that the discharge will be less than 4 MGD or 0.05 percent of the mean annual dis- charge rate. In addition, the annual average discharge in Southern Florida is also highly variable. There is a 20 percent chance that the annual average discharge will be less than 4,130 MGD which is 56 percent of the mean annual discharge. In addition, there is a 5 percent chance that the annual average flow will be only 35 percent of the mean annual discharge. Along the Texas-Gulf coast, in the Galveston Bay area for example, there is a 50 percent chance that the average flow for August will be less than 1,032 MGD or 14 percent of the mean annual- discharge of 7,470 MGD. Likewise, there is a 5 percent chance that the October average discharge into-the estuary will be less than 161 MGD or 2 percent of the utean-annual discharge. The mean annual discharge also fluctuates widely. For example, there is a 20 percent chance that the annual average discharge will be only 42 percent of the mean annual discharge and a 5 percent chance that it will only be 19 percent of the mean annual discharge. This undoubtedly is a result of.the effects that occasional hurricanes have on the mean annual discharge values, but nevertheless the data show the large fluctuations that occur naturally in this estuarine area, and yet the estuary is still highly productive and supports a variety of fish and wildlife rE!Sources. 114 Table 4.3. Outflows from ASA's in MGD - Monthly flow at 50% chance of being exceeded as a mean. Trinity San Southern Southern Sabine- Galveston Colorado Guadalupe- South Central Francisco Lake Potomac Florida Neches Bay Brazos Llano Nueces Coastal Coastal Bay Michigan Oahu ASA 206 305 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1806 1805 1804 403 2003 Annual 8,708 6,579 8,256 6,192 3,354 1,354 3,418 342 1,032 3,160 1,161 367 Oct. 2,967 9,223 j'1""r""9I3"5'j I I 11 1,419 1,484 968 1,935 31 110 380 452 187 Nov. 3,999 3,547 2,128 2,322 1,677 838 181 1 219 710 593 348 Dec. 5,418 903 5,934 3,418 1,806 838 1,483 284 452 2,580 600 419 H Jan. 7,740 709 9,159 4,580 1,935 838 1,612 710 1,419 6,321 632 484 Feb. 11,674 464 9,868 6,063 2v9O2 1,161 1,612 1,096 1,935 7,417 968 387 Mar. 18,189 361 10,836 5,676 1,677 774 1,548 574 1,226 4,966 2,193 355 Apr. 13,480 10,191 6,128 2,064 744 1,742 368 903 2,902 2,064 413 May 9,998 187 11,158 7,740 4,128 1,354 2,774 71 355 838 1,096 284 June 6,450 1,612 7,611 4,902 3,225 1,032 2,386 31 181 342 645 111 jjj@V@6'1 1111 July 3,354 7,675 4,128 2,000 1,032 838 2,838 23 110 194 471 194 Aug. 3,160 8,514 2,258 478 1,484 168 Sept. OF 1,161 1,161 903 1,935 26 77 194 393 116 11(15716 8,191 2,516 Low flows. Table 4.4. Outflows from ASA's in MGD - Monthly flow at 95% chance of being exceeded as a mean. Trinity- San Southern Southern Sabine- Galveston Colorado- Guadalupe South Central Francisco Lake Potomac Florida Neches Bay Brazos Llano Nueces Coastal Coastal Bay Michigan Oahu ASA 206 305 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1806 1805 1804 403 2003 Annual 4,322 2,580 3,031 1,419 774 322 645 52 161 1,096 484 181 Oct. 1,290 31741 426 116 187 368 5 35 103 110 43 Nov. 1,677 709 522 264 264 142 445 6 52 148 161 71 Dec. 1,935 129 1,226 458 252 155 490 10 71 226 142 103 Jan. 2,838 90 2,451 613 206 155 535 37 155 903 155 155 Feb. 5,354 64 2,516 1,354 426 187 710 20 290 1,419 213 103 Mar. 9,224 20 3,096 1,096 232 116 522 11 187 1,226 774 1 84 Apr. 6,321 2,322 1,161 271 90 458 11 116 529 710 110 303 May 4,773 6 2,128 1,354 355 155 6 84 245 271 77 1111 June 2,451 77 1,677 710 439 110 774 4 58 142 212 32 Jill July 1,484 1,419 1,290 335 103 24 348 3 37 ?,7 129 50 2.3 30 3 97 Aug. 1:161 86 710 213 471 3 10 46 11111111111111 110 Sept. 226 1 2,709 632 194 155 168 361 31 122 r U1. I I I I i I I I I I I i 11 9H 1111111111 Low flows. dh Ah The southern coast of California is an example of an area which-has a natural paucity of freshwater discharge to the few major estuaries that exist there. During the summer months, there is a 50 percent chance that the average discharge will be less than 19 MGD, which is little more than 4 percent of the mean annual discharge of 445 MGD. There is a 5 percent chance that the flows will be less than 3 MGD, less than 0.6 percent of the mean annual discharge rate. Stream flows into these estuaries are intermittent and substantial freshwater input is normally limited to the winter months. Newport Bay, for example, is a relic estuary, originally formed by large discharges but now receiving drainage from a semi-arid region. It therefore is characteristically marine most of the year. Central Coastal California and San Francisco Bay tributaries have highly variable seasonal and annual flows. Southern Lake Michigan tributaries are not as highly variable from month to month but have a typical peak discharge during the spring thaw. EFFECTS OF INCREASED CONSUMPTIVE USE Reduction of freshwater flows into an estuary can affect the estuary in a number of ways: 1) increased salinity, 2) increased flushing time, 3) change in circulation, and 4) decreased sedimentation. All definitions of an estuary include mixing of sea water with fresh water, but the amount of fresh water in proportion to the size of the estuary varies enormously, not only from one estuary to another, but also seasonally within a single estuary. The biota found with an estuary re- flect the relative stability or instability of the salinity regime existing there, and any change in the freshwater input will likewise affect the salinity regime and the biotic communities. Within the lower reaches of a river or in a bay or sound, salinity is a continuum, diminishing upstream and increasing toward the sea. The continuum is dynamic, however, in that it fluctuates in response to tidal influence, weather conditions, and freshwater discharge. A decrease in discharge in general moves the iso- halines further upstream. Significantly, the lowest diversity of organisms is found in the transition zone between salt and fresh water where salinity fluctuates most widely. Probably the most significant effect caused by reduction of freshwater flows is the change of salinity and its resulting effect on fish and wild- life habitats. In tidal rivers such as the Potomac, a reduction of freshwater flow has the same effect as low flow conditions in the summer months; it moves the isohalines upstream but on a permanent basis. In- fauna requiring a particular range of salinities reestablish themselves further upstream. Existing oyster beds are subjected to higher salinities and those in the lower reaches may be subjected to predators such as the oyster drill and the probability of infectious oyster diseases such as MSX which are salinity-limited under normal conditions. New oyster rocks and cultch would have to be established further upstream in order for the larval oyster set to remain viable. Normal spawning and nursery areas for 117 anadramous fish such as herring and shad might be reduced in size. This might be significant if suitable bottoms were not available or if a physical barrier to upstream migration were present. In cases suchas the Potomac, the size and salinity of the receiving body of water (the Chesapeake Bay) determine the extent of salinity change in the river caused by a reduction in freshwater flow. Along the Texas--Gulf coast and south coastal California are examples of estuaries deprived of sub- stantial freshwater inflow and consequently are of high salinity, as discussed later. The damming of rivers and reductions in flow reduce the amount of sediment reaching the estuaries. The sediments themselves are important in controlling the ecosystem as they are sites for the sorption of nutrients and for microbial activity responsible for the decomposition of organic matter. In some cases, this can be an advantage, particularly where navigation channels must be maintained. In other cases where large flows are prevalent, deltas depend upon this continued nourishment by sediments. Without the sediment load and coastwise dispersion, erosion takes place with the loss of beaches and the del-tas themselves. In the 00, latter case, a change of wildlife habitat results. SUMMARY The impacts of projected water use and supply for the years 1.985 and 2000 on estuarine and nearshore environments and resources when viewed on a regional basis are insignificant. When individual ASA's are examined, however, certain regions appear.to face possible significant impacts. The ASA's in whicb estuaries might re- ceive the highest impacts because of changes (principally increases in water use) lie along the Texas-Gulf coast. Water use in certain ASA's (Trinity, 1202; Brazos, 1203; Colorado-Llano, 1204) is projected to increabe to such an extent that extensive salinity alteration may occur. Along the Texas-Gulf coast, the Laguna Madre and Baffin Bay are exam- ples of shallow estuaries where evaporation inthis arid cli'mate has ex- ceeded freshwater inflow resulting in hypersaline conditions. Further east, the Nueces River feeds Corpus Christi Bay and the Guadalupe and San Antonio rivers empty into San Antonio Bay. Connections with the Gulf of Mexico are quite restricted, therefore reduction of flow would undoubtedly increase the salinity of the extensive bay system. The Colorado and Brazos rivers empty directly to the Gulf of Mexico, but the Trinity and San Jacinto rivers feed the extensive Galveston Bay complex. Again, passes through the barrier islands are limited and reduction of flow would increase the salinity from the present average of about 12 ppt. A significant in- crease could seiciously affect the shrimp and sliellfish industries, and valuable nursery areas could be lost. 118 Although the assumption has been made that the 1983 Water Quality Goals will be met by 1985, it should be noted that the flushing of es- tuaries is partly a function of freshwater flow, and a reduction of flow would tend to increase the concentration of pollutants within the estu- aries unless they can be reduced at the source. Since the Texas bays have a tidal range of only about 0.5 feet, the flushing characteristics must be considered along with freshwater input. Though not an estuarine or nearshore environment of the coastal United States, the Gulf of California is a region that might also face similar problems. Water use projections for the Lower Colorado Region (ASA 1502) and the Rio Grande Region (ASA 1305) are similar to those in some of the Texas-Gulf ASA's. If U. S. water demands in this region did impact the receiving body or water supply, possible international ramifications might arise. Although, with the few exceptions mentioned, projected water use de- mands for 1985 and 2000 do not appear to offer a major threat on a regional or ASA basis, a word of caution must be interjected. Back extrapolation from the general case to the specific case may not provide accurate pre- dictions of impacts of water use demands. It is possible to envision two small watersheds within a given ASA, both of which have estuarine areas in the lower reaches, in which water demands of one far exceed supply, while certain factors (such as, for example, discharges from other water- sheds) can cause supply to greatly increase and exactly balance the excess use on our first watershed. Analysis by ASA in this instance would indi- cate no use changes yet the impact on the two estuaries in question could be marked. While it is reasonable to state that from a national perspective no major concern with regard to impacts of projected water use on estuarine and nearshore environments be expressed, the case of individual systems is different. Detailed area related analysis must be made on each estuarine area threatened with water supply modifications before accurate assessments of the impacts of these changes can be made. Although estuarine systems are adapted to widely fluctuating natural flow conditions, long term alterations of an area's water supply (be it increased or decreased) may have marked effects both on the resources present and on the ability of the system to rebound to its normal condition. 119 4 4 Appendix 1. Partial List of Estuarine Dependent and Nearshore Marine Species. FISH: FISH (Cont'd): alewive Alosa pseudoharengu; sunfish Lepomis sp. anchovies Engra lis mordax (Pacific) tarpon Megalop; atlantica Anchoa sp. (Atlantic) tautog Tautoga'onitis bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix threadfin, Pacific Polydac:ylus approximans burbot Lota lota trout, brook Salvelinus fontinalis bass Morone sp. trout, brown Salmo trutta bass, black sea Centro ristis striata trout, cutthroat Salmo c:Larki* @, a lv e 171@_ bass, largemouth Micropterus salmoides trout, lake - )us namaycush bass, striped Morone saxatilis trout, rainbow Salmo _Eairdneri carp Cyprinus carpio (steelhead) catfishes Ictaluridae trout, spotted sea Cynosci)n nebulosus char, Arctic Salvelinus alpinus walleye Stizostedion vitreum vitreum cisco (lake Coregonus (Leucichthys) whitefish, lake CoregoniLs clupe formis herring) artedii cod Gadus sp. CRUSTACEANS: crevalle Caranx hippos crab, blue Callinectes sapidus croaker, Atlantic Micropogon undulatus crab, dungeness Cancer magister Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma crab, green Tarcinus maenas drum, black Pogonias cromis crab, king -Paralit-iodes camschatica drum, red Sciaenops ocellata (Alaska king crab) eel, common Anguilla rostrata crab, rock Cancer irroratus (Atlantic) flounders Bothidae; Pleuronectidae Ta-ncer sp. (Pacific goatfish Mullidae crab, stone Menippe mercenaria herring, blueback Alosa aestivalis crab, tanner Chionoec:etes sp. herring, Pacific Clupea harengus pallasi crawfish. fresh- Cambar us sp. (Atlantic) hogchoker Trinectes maculatus water Astacus sp. (Pacific) kingfish Menticirrhus sp. lobster, northern Homarus americanus (Atlantic) 'menhaden @revoortia sp. lobster,' slipper T,_yllarides sp. minnows -Eyrpinidae lobster, spiny Panulirus argus (Atlantic) mullet Mugil sp. Panuli us interruptus (Pacific) perch, white Morone americana shrimp Penaeus sp.; Paudalus sp.; perch, yellow Perca flavescens Xiphop nacus sp.; Pandalopsis pigfish Orthopristis chrysopterus sp.; Crangon sp. pike, blue* Stizostedion vitreum glaucum pike, northern Esox lucius MOLLUSKS: pinfish Lagodon rhomboides abalone Haliotis sp. pompano Trachinotus sp. clam, butter Saxi.doiTus nuttalli (Pacific) porgies Calamus sp. clam, little neck _f_rot@7t1,_ac_a staminea (Pacific) rockfish Sebastodes sp. (Pacific) clam, maniLa Corbicula manilensis sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria clam, pismo Tivela stultorum salmon, Atlantic lmo salar clam, razor Ensis Ep. (Atlantic) salmon, chinook TrTc`�rh@y`nchus tshawytscha Siliqu, patula (Pacific) (king) clam, soft Mya arEnaria salmon, chum Oncorhynchus keta clam, surf Spisul., [email protected] salmon, coho Oncorhynchus kisutch clam, venus Mercenaria mercenaria (silver) cockles Littorina sp. salmon, pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha conchs StrombUS sp.; jusycon sp. salmon, sockeye Oncorhynchus nerka coquina D@nax sp. (kokanee, red) geoducks 17-aHio-pe generosa scad, bigeye Selar crumenophthalmus limpets Crepidula sp. scad, mackerel Decapterus macarellus mussel Mytilu3 sp. shad, American Alosa sapidissima octopus Paroct)pus appollyon silversides Medidia spp. oyster, eastern -Crassostrea virginica smelt Atherinidae; Osmeridae oyster, Pacific Crassostrea 219as snappers Lutjanidae oyster, western Ostrea lurida snook Centropomus undecimalis Rangia sp. spot Leiostomus xanthurus scallops, bay Pecten sp. sturgeon Acipenser sp. scallops, sea Placop@cten magellanicus Scaphirhynchus sp. *On endangered species list. 120 tk Appendix 2. List of Species Under Each Waterfowl Harvest Category -,Diving Ducks Dabbling Ducks Geese Redhead Mallard Snow Goose Canvasback Mallard H.R. White Morph Greater Scaup Mallard X.B. Dark Morph Lesser Scaup Black Duck Ross' Goose Ringneck Mexican Duck* White-fronted Goose Common Goldeneye Mottled Duck Canada Goose Barrows Goldeneye Gadwall Brant Bufflehead American Wigeon Black Brant Ruddy Duck Green-winged Teal Emperor Goose Masked Duck Blue-winged Teal Oldsquaw Cinnamon Teal* Harlequin Muscovy* Common Eider Northern Shoveler King Eider Pintail Black Scoter Wood Duck White-winged Scrter Black-bellied Tree Duck Surf Scoter Fulvous Tree Duck Hooded Merganser Miscellaneous hybrids Red-breasted Merganser Common Merganser Source; U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Unpublished data from Chief, Waterfowl Harvest Surveys, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland. *Rare or endangered. Appendix 3. Projected Changes in Population for Water Resource Regional. Population Population Change Population Change 1975 1985 1975-1985 2000 1985-2000 Region (11000) (1,000) M (1,000) M New England 12,492 13,613 8.96 15,313 12.49 Middle Atlantic 39,612 43,873 10.76 49,939 13.93 South Atlantic 14,858 17,311 16.51 20,750 19.87 East Gulf 10,565 12,024 13.81 13,930 15.84 Lower Mississippi 6,418 6,767 5.43 7,142 5.55 Texas-Gulf 9,911 11,163 12.63 12,906 15.62 California-South Pacific 21,159 23,703 12.02 27,093 14.30 Columbia-North Pacific 6,703 6,991 4.30 7,589 8.56 Alaska 307 361 17.70 438 21.33 Great Lakes 30,390 32,855 8.11 36,351 10.64 Hawaii 787 911 15.72 1,085 19.16 Total or Average (Regions) 153,200 169,572 10.69 192,536 13.54 Total or Average (U.S.) 213,325 234,517 9.93 263,830 12.50 Source: Calculated from "Series E" Projections and Historical Data, Population, Personal Income and Earnings, Aggregated Subareas, June, 1974, U.S. Water Resources Council. 1Excludes Caribbean Area. #4 121 Appendix 4. 1Projected Per Capita Income for Water Resource Regional. Per Capita Income 1975 Relative 1985 Relative 2000 Relative Region (1967 $) (U.S.-I.00) (1967 $) (U.S.=1.00) (1967 (U.S.=1.00) New England 4,350 1.07 5,822 1.07 8,701 1.07 Middle Atlantic 4,65:3 1.14 6,131 1.13 9,044 1.11 South Atlantic 3,437 .84 4,650 .86 7,151 .88 East Gulf 3,437 .84 4,650 .86 7,151 .88 Lower Mississippi 3,111) .77 4,240 .78 6,645 .81 Texas-Gulf 3,785 .93 5,073 .93 7,693 .94 California-South Pacific 4,557 1.12 5,965 1.10 8,822 1.08 Columbia-North Pacific 3,872 .95 5,290 .97 8,005 .98 Alaska 4,932 1.21 6,340 1.17 9,333 1.14 Great Lakes 4,4113 1.09 5,903 1.09 8,803 1.08 Hawaii 4,702 1.16 6,041 1.11 8,823 1.08 U.S. Average 4,070 1.00 5,429 1.00 8,165 1.00 Source: "Series V Projections and Historical Data, Population, Personal Income and Earnings Aggregated Subareas, June, 1974, U.S. Water Resources Council. IExcludes Caribbean Area. Appendix 5. Present Status of Selected Species (Including Estuarine and Near Shore Marine Dependent) of Interest to U.S. Fishermen. Potential for Increased Catch Fully Utilized Overfished Pacific rock sole Atlantic mackerel 1,2 Yellowfin sole Alaska herring Red hake' Alaska pollock N. E. Pacific shrimp Silver hake Pacific ocean perch Sea trouts2 Atlantic herring Pacific halibut King mackerels2 Atlantic squid Atlantic halibut Mullets Bering Sea cod Bering Sea herring California anchovy King crab Bering Sea shrimp Blue crab Tanner crab Haddocki Rock crab Pacific hake Yellowtail flounder' Jonah crab Atlantic codl,2 California sardine Surf clam Atlantic ocean perch Pacific mackerel Ocean quahog Bluefish Atlantic sea scallop Gulf of Mexico clupeids Menbadens N. W. Atlantic shrimp Oysters American lobster Atlantic bluefish tuna Hard clam Gulf shrimps Calico scallop Eastern Trop. Pacific Pacific salmon Yellowfin tunal Skipjack Source: National Fisheries Plan Review Paper on Issues and Options, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, (April 1975). lUnder international regulation. 2Significant recreational fishery. 122 LITERATURE CITED The following is a bibliography of literature cited in this report. Because of the large amount of materials without author identification, we have taken liberties with conventional bibliographic formatting to present the citations in a way we feel will make it easier for the reader to obtain copies of cited materials for further reference. Citations are listed under the sponsoring agency rather than by author. Where available, the author's name follows in parentheses. Cite No. Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory. (1) 1971. Biology of Alabama Estuarine Areas: Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory. Bull. No. 5, Dauphin Island, Alabama (H. A. Swingle). (2) 1973. Environmental Effects of Hydraulic Dredging in Estuaries. Bull. No. 9, Dauphin Island, Alabama (E. B. May). (3) 1974. Effects of Water Quality When Dredging a Polluted Harbor Using Confined Spoil Dis- posal. Bull. No. 10, Dauphin Island, Alabama (E. B. May). Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (4) n.d. The Impact of Oil Development on Waterfowl Populations in Alaska. MS (D. E. McKnight, B. Hilliker). Alaska, Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. (5) 1974. Resources of Alaska: A Regional Summary. Resource Planning Team, Anchorage, Alaska. (6) 1974. Summary of the Conference on Taking Fish and Game Resources to Meet Subsistence Needs. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Power Administration. (7) 1974. Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1973. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska, State of. (8) 1973. An Act Relating to the Regulation of Entry into Alaska Commercial Fisheries. Senate Bill No. 39, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. (9) 1974. The Economist and the Seafood Producer. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 56(5) (F. J. Smith). (10) 1974. Food from the Sea: An Economic Perspective of the Seafood Market. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 56(5) (R. Marasco). Battelle-Columbia Laboratory. (11) 1972. Environmental Aspects of Gas Pipeline Operations in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Columbia, Ohio (J. T. McGinnis). California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. (12) 1974. Annual Report, 1973. San Francisco, California. California Department of Fish and Game. (13) 1971. Fish and Wildlife in the Marine and Coastal Zone: Summary Planning Information and Recommendations. Sacramento, California. (14) 1973. Coastal County Fish and Wildlife Resources and Their Utilization. Coastal Ecosystems Management, Inc. (15) 1970. Environmental Factors Affecting Bay and Estuarine Ecosystems of the Texas Coast. Fort Worth, Texas (R. J. Parker, W. C. Blanton). Conservation Foundation. (16) n.d. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of the Coastal Zone. Washington, D. C. (J. Clark). (17) 1974. Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States. Prepared in cooperation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Environment, 4 vol. (H. T. Odum, B. J. Copeland, E. A. McMahan). Federal Power Commission. (18) 1975. Water Resources Council's 1975 National Water Assessment Nationwide Analysis. Electric Power Generation, Uses of Water. Bureau of Power, Washington, D. C. 123 Florida Department of Natural Resources. Marine Research Laboratory. (19) 1971. Thermal Addition Studies of the Crystal River Steam Electric Station. Prof. . Paper Series No. 11, St. Petersburg, Florida (C. B. Grimes). (20) 1972. Further Thermal Addition Studies at Crystal River, Florida with an Annotated Checklist of Marine Fishes Collected, 1969-1971. Prof. Papers Series No. 20, St. Petersburg, Florida (J. A. Mountain). Georgia State University. (21) 1974. Southeastern Detailed Analysis: Economic Survey of Wildlife Recreal--ion. Environ- mental Research Group. Georgia, University of. (22) 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia (E. P. 3dum). Great Lakes Basin Commission. (23) 1975. Power Plant Siting Issues and Policies for the Great Lakes Coastal Zone. Ann Arbor, Michigan (C. A. Shafer). Great Lakes Fishery Commission. (24) 1973. Effects of Exploitation, Environmental Changes, and New Species on the Fish Habitats and Resources of Lake Erie. Techn. Rep. No. 22 (W@ L. Hartman). (25) 1973. Lake Huron: The Ecology of the Fish Community and Man's Effects on It. Techn. Rep. No. 21 (A. H. Berst, G. R. Spangler). (26) 1973. Lake Michigan: Man's Effects on Native Fish Stocks and Other Biota.. Ann Arbor, Michigan (L. Wells, A. L. McLain). (27) 1973. Lake Superior: A Case History of the Lake and Its Fisheries. Tecbn. Rep. No. 19, Ann Arbor, Michigan (A. H. Lawrie, J. F. Rabrer). (28) 1973. A Review of the Changes in the Fish Species Composition of Lake Ontario. Techn. Rep. No. 23, Ann Arbor, Michigan (W. J. Christie). Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development. (29) 1974. Hawaii and the Sea in 1974. Prepared for the Governor's Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, Honolulu, Hawaii. Louisiana State University. Center for Wetland Resources. (30) 1972. An Economic Base Study of Coastal Louisiana. Baton Rouge, Louisiana (L. B. Jones, G. R. Rice). (31) 1972. Louisiana Superport Studies. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission. (32) 1971. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory and Study. New Orleans, Louisiana. Phase 1: Area Description. Phase IT: Hydrology. Phase III: Sedimentology. Phase TV: Biology. (33) 1972. A Study of Commercially Important Estuarine-Dependent Industrial Fishes. New Orleans, Louisiana (G. Dunham). Marine Fisheries Review. (34) 1975. Selected Information on Recreational Boats in tbe U. S. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(2) (J. Ridgely). Marine Technology Society Journal. (35) 1972. Projections of Socioeconomic Trends in the Coastal Zone. Mar. TE@chn. Sac. J. 6(4):21-24 (M. B. Spangler). 1974. An Alaskan Looks at Japanese Fishing Activity. Mar. Techn. Soc. J. 8(5) (C. Tillion). Maryland Municipal League, Cecil County Chapter. (37) .1969. The Chesapeake Bay and Cecil County. (C. G. Kirkhride). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (38P 1970. Power, Pollution and Public Policy: Issues in Electric Power Production, Shoreline Recreation, and Air and Water Pollution Facing New England and the Nation. Cambridge, Massachusetts (D. W. Ducsik, ed.). (39) 1973. Shoreline for the Public. Cambridge, Massachusetts (D. W. Ducsik). 124 Miami' University of. (40) 1973. The Use of Ocean Outfalls for Marine Waste Disposal in Southeast Florida's Coastal Waters. Sea Grant Program (T. N. Lee, J. B. McGuire). (41) 1973. Water Movements in Shallow Coastal Bays and Estuaries. Sea Grant Program (T. N. Lee, Claes Rooth). (42) 1974. A Breakdown of Federal Marine Pollution Law Affecting Ocean Waters and the Possible Impact on National Law Resulting from the Adoption of U. S. Draft Articles on Pol- lution at the Third Law of the Sea Conference. Sea Grant Program, Coral Gables, Florida (P. A. Dales III). Michigan Water Resources Commission. (43) 1974. Thermal Discharges and Water Quality Control. Water Quality Appraisal Section. The Milwaukee Journal. (44) 1975. Great Lakes a Battleground. The Milwaukee Journal, February 23, 1975 (D. A. Blubm). Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. (45) 1968. The Status and Potential of the Marine Environment. Hauppauge, Long Island, New York. National Science Foundation. (46) 1973. Delaware Estuary. Mosaic 40). National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. (47) 1975. Coastal Zone Management Fisheries. Div. Inland and Marine Fisheries. New York, State University of. (48) 1973. Dredging and Spoiling on Long Tsland. Marine Sciences Research Center (J. S. O'Connor). North Carolina State University. (49) 1974. State and Federal Jurisdictional Conflicts in the Regulation of United States Coastal Waters. Sea Grant Pub. No. UNC-SC-74-05, Raleigh, North Carolina (T. Suher, K. Hennessee). Nuclear Engineering International. (50) 1973. Atlantic Generating Station. Entire issue, June 1973. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (51) 1964. Effects of Large Structures on the Ohio Shore of Lake Erie. Div. of Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio (R. P. Hartley). Oregon State University. Marine Advisory Program. (52) 197- Crisis in Oregon's Estuaries: A Summary of Environmental Factors Affecting Oregon Estuaries. Corvallis, Oregon. Oregon State University. Sea Grant Program. (53) 1974. Oregon's Estuaries. Corvallis, Oregon. The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine. (54) 1974. A Socio-Economic and Environmental Inventory of the North Atlantic Region: Sandy Hook to Bay of Fundy. Public Affairs Research Center, South Portland, Maine. Rhode Island, University of. (55) 1973. Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Marine Pub. Ser. No. 2 and 3, Kingston, Rhode Island. 2 vol. Roy Mann Associates, Inc. (56) 1974. Recreational Boating Impact: Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sierra Club. (57) 1974. Oil and Trouble in the Louisiana Wetlands. Sierra Club (July-August, 1974) (W. Futrell). Sport Fishing Institute. (58) 1974. SFI Bulletin No. 258, September 1974. Texas Interagency Natural Resources Council. (59) 1971. The Coastal Resources Management Program of Texas. 2 vol..(J. T. Goodwin, J. C. Moseley). 12 Transactions of American Fisheries Society. (60) 1970. Estuarine Classification and Responses to Disturbances. Trans. An. Fish. Soc. 4:826-835. (B. J. Copeland). U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. (61a) 1971.. Report on the National Shoreline Study* Washington, D. C. (NTIS AD 730 689). (61b) - National Shoreline Study: Shore Pro;ection Guidelines. MIS AD 730 351). (610 - National Shoreline Study: Shore Management Guidelines. MIS AD 730 378). (61d) - Great Lakes Region Inventory Report (NTIS AD 733 470). (61e) - North Atlantic Regional Inventory Report. 2 vol. (NTIS AD 730 915, AD 730 916). (61f) - Regional Inventory Report, South Atlantic-Gulf Region, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. (NTIS AD 730 693). (61g) - Lower Mississippi Regional Inventory. (NTIS AD 728 510). (61h) - Texas Coaital Regional Inventory. (NTIS AD 730 691). (611) - California Regional Inventory. (61j) - Columbia-North Pacific Region, Washington and Oregon. (NTIS AD 730 342). (61k) - Alaska Region. (NTIS jO 730 692). (611) - Hawaii Region. (NTIS AD 730 769). (62) 1973. North Atlantic Division. Water Resources Development in Delaware. New York, New York. (63) 1973. North Atlantic Division. Water Resources Development in Maryland. New York, New York. (64) 1975. Charleston District. EnvLronmental Impact Statement. Cooper River Rediversion Project, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. U. S. Congress, Senate. (65) 1974. Emergency Marine Fisheries Protection Act of 1974. 93rd Congress, Senate Report No. 93-1079. U. S. Department of Agriculture. (66) 1974. Effects of Log Dumping and Rafting on the Marine Environment of Southeast Alaska. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon (B. C. Pease). U. S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (67) 1970. The Future of the World's Fishery Resources: Forecasts of Demand, Supply and Prices to the Year 2000 with a Discusslon of Implications for Public Policy. Econ. Res. Lab., National Marine Fisheries Service (F. W. Bell). (68) 1970. A Survey of Fish Purchases by Socio-Economic Characteristics. Working Paper No. 51 of the former Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. (D. A. Nash). (69) 1972. Commercial Fisheries Review 34(1-2). National Marine Fisheries Service. (70) 1973. 1970 Saltwater Angling Survey. Current Fishery Stat. No. 6200, National Karine Fisheries Service. (71) 1973-4. Current Fisheries Statistics. Nos. 5934, 6129, 6273, 6132, 6131. National Marine Fisheries Service. (72) 1974. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 6400, Fisheries of the U. S., 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service. (73) 1974. Fishery Statistics of the U. S., 1971. Stat. Digest No. 65. (74) 1975. National Fisheries Plan: Review Paper on Issues and Options. National Marine Fisheries Service. (75) 1975. Participation in Marine Recreational Fishing Northeastern United States, 1973-74. Current Fisheries Stat. 6236, National Marine Fisheries Service. U. S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. (76)_ 1970. The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities. Preliminary RE!port. (77) 1974. Outdoor Recreation in Chesapeake Bay. (78) 1974. The Recreation Imperative. Draft of the Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan, U. S. Senate Committee*Print. U. S'. Department of Interior. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. (79) 1972. Southern California Estuaries and Coastal Wetlands: Endangered Environments. Portland, Oregon. U. S. Department of Interior. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. (80) 1969. The National Estuarine Pollution Study. 3 vol. 126 U. S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. (81) n.d. Unpublished data from Chief, Waterfowl Harvest Surveys, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland. (82) 1969. Fish and Wildlife as Related to Water Quality of the Lake Ontario Basin. (83) 1970. Fish and Wildlife as Related to Water Quality of the Lake Superior Basin. (84) 1970. National Estuary Study. 5 vol. (85) 1970. National Survey of Fishing and Hunting 1970. Resource Publication 95. (86) 1974. Administrative Report, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland, July 10, 1974. (87) 1974. Some Dimensions of the Problem of Subsistence. Anchorage, Alaska. (G. W. Watson, C. Wentworth). U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration. (88) 1975. Synergistic Thermal and Air Pollution Effects on a Mangrove Forest. Presented at Second Thermal Ecology Symposium, with Savannah River Ecology Lab. (M. J. Canoy). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (89) 1971. Agricultural Pollution of the Great Lakes Basin. Water Quality Office, Washington, D. C. (90) 1971. A Study of Coastal Water Quality in the Vicinity of San Juan, Puerto Rico. South- east Water Laboratory, Athens, Georgia. (91) 1974. National Water Quality Inventory: 1974 Report to the Congress. Office of Water Planning and Standards. (92) 1975. Draft Reports to the 1975 National Estuarine Report to Congress (Section 104(n), P. L. 92-500) for Southeast, N.C., S.C., Ga., Fla., Ala., and Miss. Surveillance and Analysis Division, Athens, Georgia. 1975. Estuarine Pollution: A National Assessment. Conference Proceedings, Washington, D. C. (93) - Bosley, J. J. "Estuarine Management-The Intergovernment Decision." (94) - Broadhead, G. C. "Our Estuaries and Commercial Fishing Trends." (95) - Clark, J. "Status of Estuarine Sportfish Resources." (96) - Hershman, M. J. "Land Use Controls and Water Quality in the Estuarine Zone." (97) - Hood, D. "Pollution Problems in the Estuaries of Alaska." (98) - Hopkins, S. H. and S. Petrocelli. "The Limiting Factors Affecting the Commercial Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico." (99) - Kalter, R. J. "Recreation Activities in the Nation's Estuarine Zone." (100) - Livingston, R. J. "Resource Management and Estuarine,Function with Application to the Apalachicola Drainage System (North Florida, U.S.A.)." (101) - Lynch, M. P. "Organizational Arrangements for Management of Atlantic Coast Estuarine Environments." (102) - McHugh, J. L. "Limiting Factors Affecting Commercial Fisheries in the Middle Atlantic Estuarine Areas." (103) - Smith, S. V. "Environmental Status of Hawaiian Estuaries." (104) - Tihansky, D. P. and N. Meade. "Estimating the Economic Value of Estuaries to U. S. Commercial Fisheries." U. S. Water Resources Council. (105) 1970. Columbia-North Pacific Region: Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, main report and 16 appendices. (106) 1972. North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study. Prepared by the North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study Coordinating Committee, main report and 22 appendices. (107) 1974. Framework Studies: Lower Mississippi Region, Comprehensive Study. Prepared by the Lower Mississippi Region Comprehensive Study Coordinating Committee, main report and 21 appendices. (108) 1974. Series "E" Projections and Historical Data: Population, Personal Income and Earnings, Aggregated Subareas. (109) 1974. 75 Water Assessment: National Analysis Work Statements. (110) 1975. Great Lakes Basin Framework Study. Prepared by the Great Lakes Basin Commission, main report and 23 appendices. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. (111) 1974. Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries: Proceedings of the National Workshop on Sanctuaries. SRAMSOE No. 70, Gloucester Point, Virginia (M. P. Lynch, B. L. Laird, T. F. Smolen, eds.). (112) 1974. A Socio-Economic Environmental Baseline Summary for the South Atlantic Region Between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Department of Interior, 5 vol. 10, 127 Washington Department of Ecology. (113) 1974. Presentation to the State of Washington House Committee on Ecology, Sub.- committee on the Preservation of Marine Water Quality. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (114) 1973. Lake Michigan: State of the Fishery. Bureau of Fish and Wildlife Management, Madison, Wisconsin (R. J. Poff). Wisconsin, University of. Sea Grant Program. (115) 1973. Investigation of the Sediments and Potential Manganese Nodule Resources of Green Bay, Wisconsin. (J. R. Moore, R. P. Meyer, C. L. Morgan). (116) 1974. Scour and Deposition: Changes in Sedimentation Around a Nuclear Power Plant. Techn. Rep. No. 223 (M. H. Kohler, J. R. Moore). BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS In addition to the preceding list of literature cited, the following list of references is included. These references were felt by the authors of this report to be valuable sources for the reader who desires to obtain more detailed information about subjects covered herein. Alabama Department of Conservation and Auburn University. 1971. Alabama Outdoor Recreational Plan, Executive Summary. Dept. of Conservation, Montgomery, Alabama. Alabama Marine Resources Laboratory. 1971. Description of Alabama Estuarine Areas: Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory. Bull. No. 6, Dauphin Island, Alabama (J. H. Crance). Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 1974. Proposed Regulations: Limited Entry. Report to the fisher-men of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1972. Alaska Catch and Production: Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Stat. Leafl. No. 25, Juneau, Alaska. 1972. Commercial Operators: 1972. Stat. Leafl. No. 24. Juneau, Alaska. 1972. Effects of Logging on Dolly Varden. Juneau, Alaska (R. D. Reed, S. T. Ellictt). 1973. Alaska Catch and Productionz Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Stat. Leafl. No. 26, Juneau, Alaska. 1974. Economic Characteristics of Sport Fishing in Alaska. 1973 Alaska Sport Fishing-Survey. Alaska, Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. 1974. Subsistence Harvests in Five Native Regions. Resource Planning Team, Anchorage, Alaska (A. Patterson). 16. Alaska Power Administration. 1974. Devil Canyon Status Report. Juneau, Alaska. 1974. Draft Report: Water for Energy Self-Sufficiency. Water Study Committee, su...)mitted to Water Resources Council Water for Energy Self-Sufficiency Study, Juneau, Alaska. American Geographical Society. 1969. A Plan for the Marine Resources of the Atlantic Coastal Zone. Marine Resources Committee (G. P. Spinner). 128 Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1973 . Oregon Areas of Environmental Concern. Richland, Washington. California Department of Fish and Game. 1972. Water Quality and Quantity Problems of Fish and Wildlife. Series of reports for various areas in California. Water Quality Planning Project, Sacramento, California. California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. 1971. General Inventory: Coastal Zone Resources. Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan. California, University of. Institute of Ecology. 1973. A Survey of the Natural History of the South Pacific Border Region, California. Davis, California (G. L. Stebbins, D. W. Taylor). Center for the Environment and Man, Inc. 1972. Coast Stabilization and Protection on Long Island. (F. L. Bartholomew, W. V. McGuinness, Jr.). 1972. Wetlands on Long Island. (R. Green). Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 1974. Report on the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States. Wilmington, North Carolina. Delaware Governor's Task Force on Marine and Coastal Affairs. 1971. Coastal Zone Management for Delaware. Dover, Delaware. 1972. The Coastal Zone of Delaware. Dover, Delaware. Delaware, University of. 1973. Environmental Vulnerability of the Delaware Bay Area to Supertanker Accommodation. Prepared for.the Council on Environmental Quality, 4 vol. (NTIS PB 219 801). Delaware, University of. College of Marine Studies. 1973. Coastal Vegetation of Delaware: The Mapping of Delaware's Coastal Marshes. (V. Klemas). 1974. A Study of the Socio-Economic Factors Relating to the Outer Continental Shelf of the Mid-Atlantic Coast. 9 vols. (M. Jenny, J. Goodman, eds,). Dupere and Associates, Inc. 1973. North Slope Borough Reconnaissance Sttidy: An Inventory of the Borough and its Com- munities. Barrow, Alaska. Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska. 1969. Alaska Natives and the Land. Anchorage, Alaska. Federal Power Commission. 1974. 1974 Alaska Power Survey: A Report of the Technical Advisory Committee on Resources and Electric Power Generation. Prepared by Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Juneau, Alaska. 1974. 1974 Alaska Power Survey: A Report of the Technical Advisory Committee on Environmental Considerations and Consumer Affairs. Prepared by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin. 1974. Effects of oil on Marine Ecosystems: A Review for Administrators and Policy Makers. Fishery Bulletin 72(3):625-638 (D. R. Evans, S. D. Rice). Florida Department of Natural Resources. Coastal Coordinating Council. 1971. Coastal Zone Management in Florida, 1971. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources. Division of Recreation and Parks. 1971. Outdoor Recreation in Florida, A Comprehensive Program for Meeting Florida's Outdoor Recreation Needs. Tallahassee, Florida. International Association for Great Lakes Research. 1972. Delineation of Great Lakes Estuaries. Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Research.; 710-718 (R. A. Brant, C. E. Herdendorf). Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. 1968. The Potomac Estuary: A Changing Environment. Conference Proceedings, Washington, D. C. Marine Fisheries Review. 1973. Preliminary Biological Survey of Log-Rafting and Dumping Areas in Southeastern Alaska. Mar. Fish. Rev. 35(5-6):19-22 (R. J. Ellis). 129 Maryland Department of Water Resources. 1970. Report on Status of Water Quality and Significant Sources of Wastewater Discharges in Maryland. Prepared with the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Maryland, Office of the Governor. 1968. Proceedings of the Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay. Annapolis, Maryland. Maryland, University of. Natural Resources Institute. 1970, Assateague Ecological Studies, Final Report. Contrib, No. 446, 3 vol.. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. 1965-1974. A Study of the Marine Resources of [Massachusetts]. Series of reports for various areas in Massachusetts. Boston, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Civil Engineering. 1973. A Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability of Machias Bay, Maine to Oil Supertankers. Cambridge, Massachusetts (S. F. Moore, R. L. Dwyer, A. M. Katz). Miami, University of. 1970. The Effects of Thermal Effluent on Some of the Macrofauna of a Subtropical Estuary. Techn. Bull. No. 1, Sea Grant Program (R. Nugent, Jr.). Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1973. A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands. Mississippi Park Commission. 1973. Mississippi Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, ExecutiVe Summary. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. 1964. Salt Marshes of New Hampshire. Division of Inland and Marine Fisher@@es. 1971. What 1, Hunting and Fishing Worth to Now Hampshire. New York State Sea Crant Program. 1973. An Information System for the Management of Lake Ontario. Great L;3ki,q Mgt. Prob. Set., Albany, New York (H. D. Reynolds). 1973. Natural Resources Management in the Great La@os Basin. Great Lakos lqgt. Prob. Set., Albany, New York (J. A. Burkholder). New York, State University of. 1972. Possible Effects of Construction and Operation of a Supertanker Terminal on rho Marine Environmont in the Now York Bight. Stony Brook, Now York (J. L. McHugh). North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources. 1973. Summary: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan for N,,rth Carolina. Office of Recreation Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Marine Science Council. 1972. North Carolina's Coastal Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. @orthwest Science. 1974. Caveats Concerning Evaluation of Effects of Logging on Salmon Production in South- eastern Alaska from Biological Information. Northwest Science 48(2):132-144 0. T. Pella, R. T. Myron). Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission. 1974. Fish and Wildlife Resources, Oregon Coastal Zone. Portland, Oregon. Oregon State University. Marine Advisory Program. 197- Understanding the Use and Management of Oregon Estuaries. Corvallis, Oregon. Oregon State University. Sea Grant Program. 1974. Relevant Data Concerning Proposed Discharges of Dnmosric Wastes into Notarts Bay, Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon (S. L. Boley, L. S. Slotta). Oregon State University. Water Resources Research Institute. 1974. Survey of Oregon's Water Laws. Corvallis, Oregon (C. 1). Clark). Rhodt- Island Department of Natural Resources. 1970. Report of the Governor's Committee on the Coastal Zone.. Providence, Rhode Island. 130 Rhode Island, University of. Coastal Resources Center. dhk 1973. Rhode Island's Barrier Beaches: A Report on a Management Problem and an Evaluation of Options. Kingston, Rhode Island, 2 vol. (S. B. Olsen, M. J. Grant). South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1970. South Carolina Tidelands Report. Columbia, South Carolina. Sport Fishing Institute. 1974. Fisheries Management in the Coastal Zone. Bull. No. 254. Texas A & M University. 1974. Economic Impact of Recreation and Tourism within Texas Coastal Zone. Sea Grant Program, College Station, Texas (B. I. Ingram). U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. North Atlantic Division: 1973. Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report. Baltimore District, 5 vols. 1973. Water Resources Development in New Jersey. New York, New York. 1973. Water Resources Development in New York. New York, New York. 1973. Water Resources Development in Virginia. New York, New York. North Pacific Division: 1969. Water Resources Development in Alaska. Portland, Oregon. 1973. Water Resources Development in Oregon. Portland, Oregon. 1973. Water Resources Develo,:)ment in Washington. Portland, Oregon. 1975. Water Resources Development in Alaska. Portland, Oregon. Pacific Ocean Division: 1975. Hawaii Water Resources Development. Ft. Armstrong, Hawaii. South Atlantic Division: 1975. Water Resources Development in North Carolina. Atlanta, Georgia. South Pacific Division: 1973. Water Resources Development in California. Sacramento, California. Southwestern Division: 1975. Water Resources Development in Texas. Dallas, Texas, U. S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1974. State Coastal Zone Management Activities, 1974. Office of Coastal Zone Management, Washington, D. C. U. S. Department of Interior. 1971. Natural Resources, Ecological Aspects, Uses and Guidelines for the Management of Coos Bay, Oregon. Portland, Oregon. U. S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1970. The Potomac: A Model Estuary. USGPO, Washington, D. C. U. S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1974. Water Management: The Key to Fish and Wildlife Values in South Florida. Atlanta, Georgia (J. P. Crowder). U. S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1968. Fish and Wildlife of Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Portland, Oregon. 1970. Fish and Wildlife of Willapa Bay, Washington. Portland, Oregon. 1973. U. S. List of Endangered Fauna. 1974. Proposed Alaska National Wildlife Refuges. 1975. Resource Reports for the Outer Continental Shelf: Southeastern Bering Sea and Northern Gulf of Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. U. S. Department of Transportation. Coast Guard. 1974. Recreational Boating in the Continental U. S. in 1973; The Nationwide Boating Survey. Rep. No. 745103. U. S. Congress, House of Representatives. 1967. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation; Estuarine Areas. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 1970. Protecting America's Estuaries: The San Francisco Bay and Delta. Committee on Government Operations, 91st Congress, House Rep. No. 1433. 1972. Protecting America's Estuaries: Puget Sound and the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca. Committee on Government Operations, 92nd Congress, House Rep. No. 92-1401. 1974. Our Threatened Environment: Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. Committee on Government Operations, 93rd Congress, House Rep. No. 93-1396. 131 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. The Economic and Social Importance of Estuaries. Water Quality Office, prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute (D. C. Sweet). U. S. Water Resources Council. 1971. Comprehensive Framework Study: California Region. Prepared by the California Region Framework Study Committee, main report and appendices. Virginia Governor's Council on the Environment. 1971. The State of Virginia's Environment. Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1969. Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Interim Report to the Governor and General Assembly. SRAMSOE No. 10, Gloucester Point, Virginia (M. L. Wass, T. D. Wright). 1973. Inventory of Marine Environmental and Socio-Economic Data for the OCS Area of the Atlantic Ocean from Sandy Hook, New Jersey to Cape Canaveral, Florida. Gloucester Point, Virginia (D. R. Calder). Washington Department of Ecology. 1975. Summary of an interim Report to the 44th Legislature, Baseline Study Program, North Puget Sound. Washington Department of Game. 1972. Estuaries: A Resource Worth Saving. Olympia, Washington. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1974. Wisconsin's Lake Michigan Commercial Fisheries 1940-1973. Bureau of Fish and Wildlife Management, Madison, Wisconsin (R. J. Poff.). 132 DATE DUE GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN USA 3 6668 14107 1466